text:
filter your search All ContentElementa: Science of the Anthropocene
Knowledge Domains
Ecology & Earth Systems
Sustainability Transitions
Special Features & Forums
Special Features Guidelines
Forums Guidelines
Infrastructure Design through the Ages
Wicked Complexity
Infrastructure Satisficing
Managing Infrastructure in the Anthropocene
Adaptive management: Complicated to complex competencies
Article Commentary| May 30 2019
Infrastructure as a wicked complex process
Collections: Knowledge Domain: Sustainability Transitions
Mikhail V. Chester,
Mikhail V. Chester
1Metis Center for Infrastructure and Sustainable Engineering, Civil, Environmental, and Sustainable Engineering, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, US
Braden Allenby
Domain Editor-in-Chief: Alastair Iles
Alastair Iles
Domain Editor-in-Chief
Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California Berkeley
Associate Editor: Michael E. Chang
Michael E. Chang
Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene (2019) 7: 21.
https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.360
Mikhail V. Chester, Braden Allenby; Infrastructure as a wicked complex process. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 1 January 2019; 7 21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.360
Changing complexity in the increasingly integrated human, natural, and built systems within which our infrastructures are designed and operated make it necessary to examine how the role of engineering requires new competencies for satisficing. Several long-term trends appear to be shifting our infrastructures further away from the complicated domain where optimization and efficiency were the core approaches, to the domain of complexity, where rapidly changing environments and fragmentation of goals require fundamentally new approaches. While complexity in infrastructure has always existed in some form, making infrastructures agile and flexible for the Anthropocene will require us to acknowledge and work with the fact that infrastructure change now appears to be a wicked and complex process. Wicked complexity is the result of three competing forces that are inimical to rapid and sustained change of infrastructures in a future marked by acceleration and uncertainty: wicked problems, technical complexity including lock-in, and social complexity. The combination of these factors raises serious questions about whether rapidly changing demands, technologies, and perturbations (such as climate change, or cyber attacks) will affect our infrastructure's capacity to provide services. What infrastructure managers need to do today is very different than in the past. Increased presence and polarization of viewpoints is becoming more common, where solutions are dictated not by technical performance measures but instead by "acceptable enough" to all parties. Adaptive management practices and associated competencies that have proven successful in managing complex socio-ecological systems may provide some guidance for how to manage infrastructure change. These competencies are i) promoting a shared understanding of what infrastructures can do, ii) managing infrastructures as systems with changing demands, iii) emphasizing experimentation over conventional approaches, and, iv) restructuring education and training for a complexity mindset that emphasizes what can be over what is, and relies on satisficing, not optimization.
Infrastructure, Wicked complexity, Anthropocene
Herbert Simon – a pioneer of decision-making theory – posited that given the vast information that is needed to completely understand how to maximize one's benefit from a particular course of action, people insteadsatisfice, they will make a decision "which is good enough, rather than the absolute best" (Simon, 1947, 1957; Brown, 2004; Economist, 2009). Satisficing, a combination of satisfy andsuffice, describes the process by which, in situations of wicked complexity where optimization techniques fail, we often settle on a course of action that is good enough and "deals with a drastically simplified model of the confusion that constitutes the real world" (Simon, 1957; Brown, 2004). We use the term optimization to describe traditional engineering decision making approaches that emphasize quantification of performance with a focus on maximizing performance or efficiency while minimizing costs and meeting some desired level of service. Simon initially developed the concept of satisficing at a time when commercial, industrial, and public sector organizations were restructuring post World War II to peacetime services. This concept had profound implications on how we view decision making, not as a process that uses complete and consistent information and preferences but instead as a "rational behavior that is compatible with the access to information and the computational capacities that are actually possessed by organisms" (Simon, 1957). With what appears to be growing complexity in the constraints imposed on how our infrastructures are designed and operated, it's necessary to examine how the role of engineering is changing. We contend that while satisficing has always been part of the infrastructure process, the roles and responsibilities of infrastructure managers increasingly require satisficing, whereas classic optimization skills are necessary but more and more insufficient.
What our infrastructures will need to do in the coming centuries is likely very different than today. We acknowledge that the term infrastructure can have broad and evolving meanings (Carse, 2017; Clark, Seager and Chester, 2018) but in general refers to the human-made physical and institutional elements of systems that provide services (including management, governance, finance, and regulation) (Chester and Allenby, 2018). In the Anthropocene, this could include many human systems, so to clarify the implications for the role of engineering, this paper will focus on civil infrastructure systems that, e.g., provide water and energy, facilitate transportation, and provide information and communication capabilities.
Several long-term trends appear to be creating new forms of complexity for our infrastructure systems. First, our ability to change infrastructures at a meaningful pace appears to be constrained. The infrastructures that we rely on today share many of the core design features from when they were initially conceived decades or even a century ago (Chester and Allenby, 2018). Because demand for the core services that infrastructures deliver hasn't changed for many civil systems, the physical forms that infrastructure take and the institutions that support those forms have been organized and connected with each other over such a long history that shifting to new forms of infrastructure appears a monumental challenge — we describe this effect as lock-in. Second, as the scale and scope of human activities have grown, infrastructures have incorporated more and more of "nature" and the dichotomy between the human built and natural worlds is shrinking, thereby greatly increasing complexity, both technically and culturally (Allenby and Chester, 2018; Chester, Markolf and Allenby, 2019). Third, increasingly rapid changes in technology will more quickly drive our infrastructures to deliver services that they weren't designed to deliver. This means that we need faster cycle times, yet as per the first trend our infrastructures appear to be increasingly locked-in, slowing down our ability to change them quickly. As the need for more rapid and complex infrastructure upgrades, redesigns, and construction accelerates, lock-in becomes a significant constraint over the long-term. Fourth, because civil infrastructures have persisted for so long there has been significant accretion — i.e. the accumulation, layering, and interconnectedness of technologies, institutions, rules, and policies. Understanding the emergent behavior of infrastructures particularly when perturbed is now challenging if not impossible. Significant change now requires action across many different sub-systems and their governing agencies. For example, modernizing the U.S. power grid requires the coordinated deployment, financing, and permitting of hardware and software across hundreds if not thousands of companies and agencies. The combination of these factors raises serious questions about whether rapidly changing demands, technologies, and perturbations (such as climate change or terrorist attacks) will affect our infrastructures' capacity to provide services. These concurrent trends demand a shift from optimization to satisficing as the critical engineering competency.
It is now widely recognized that we are at the dawn of the Anthropocene, the era of the human, where rapid environmental, technological, social, political, and even cultural change, increasingly at regional and global scales, are likely to put new demands on our infrastructures. Yet infrastructures remain largely rigid, unable to change quickly (Chester and Allenby, 2018). Making infrastructures agile and flexible for the Anthropocene will require us to acknowledge and work with the fact that infrastructures are now wicked complex systems, and that satisficing has become the new normal for designing and managing these systems. This has profound implications for infrastructure managers who have been trained to assess bounded design problems that can be optimized, rather than wickedly complex problems that must be satisficed. In this commentary we first explore how infrastructures have become wicked complex systems. We then discuss how this wicked complexity has led to a shift in how we design and operate infrastructures, i.e., satisficing, and the challenges this approach introduces when large and fast changes are needed. Lastly, we propose that engineering (including education) needs to embrace the wicked complexity of infrastructures and the increasing satisficing that is needed to affect change.
Modern infrastructures are several millennia in the making. From the Neolithic period through the Classical era and the Middle Ages, infrastructure evolved relatively slowly, first with a focus on agriculture and irrigation, to much more complex systems and technologies supporting city systems and long distance transport. However, it wasn't until the Industrial Era (mid-1700s until roughly the end of the nineteenth century) when infrastructure growth skyrocketed (Syvitski, 2012). In the past century alone, the level of social, cultural, financial, and political complexity has exploded to the point where the rules by which we deploy infrastructures have drastically changed (Rosenberg and Birdzell, 1986; Kurzweil, 2010; Marchant, Allenby and Herkert, 2011; Allenby, 2012).
Cities today are integrative technologies in that they embody the engineering, culture, and infrastructures of their various periods. Cities today reflect the changing authority granted to infrastructure designers and managers. For example, modernization of urban systems, from sanitation to public transit, marked the 18th and 19th centuries, culminating in "high modernism". High modernism as practiced by planners such as Robert Moses in New York, and Le Corbusier in urban design, was marked by a brutal technocratic elitism which knowingly ignored local context and culture in the interest of implementing "universalist" and "scientific" principles in urban design. As Robert Moses declared, "[w]hen you operate in an overbuilt metropolis, you have to hack your way with a meat ax …. I'm just going to keep right on building. You do the best you can to stop it." (quoted inBerman, 1982). Critics such as Jane Jacobs and Charles Jencks derided high modernism as anti-human and hubristic, and favored "post-modern" city planning and architecture (Jacobs, 1961; Jencks, 1977). And indeed top down high modernism was replaced by post-modernist bottom-up community activism, seen in such controversies as the defeat of the proposed Greenpoint-Williamsburg waste incinerator in Brooklyn, and the London Docklands proposal, both in the 1990's (Hall, 1998; Gandy, 2003). The resulting power of activists and communities, while it accords with modern sentiment in many ways, makes many large projects such as the Boston "Big Dig" major political efforts, and can allow small but vocal minorities to stifle projects and infrastructure that the larger public good or urban community requires. The post-modern political environment of today appears to reflect a significant shift in the roles and responsibilities of engineers, planners, and infrastructure designers. Many of the new social, political, and other roles in which the engineer must now navigate have likely been acquired from others (e.g. elected officials, voters, consumers, business managers, religious leaders, etc.) that abdicated their responsibility for one reason or another. Wicked complexity inherent in the processes associated with these new roles is integral to virtually any significant infrastructure project, a point that today's engineers – and the professors that teach them – cannot ignore.
Modern infrastructures are thus not a technical problem, they're a wickedly complex problem. Going forward, we explore this wicked complexity, fully acknowledging that some forms of complexity in infrastructure have existed for ages, but focusing on what is unique about it in the Anthropocene. We first examine what causes wicked complexity and second discuss how conceptualizing the process of infrastructure change as satisficing numerous stakeholders and objectives, and away from simply optimizing a technical solution, is an increasingly important engineering framework, and hence professional skill.
The processes by which we design, build, operate, manage, rehabilitate, and decommission infrastructures are a wickedly complex problem. From an engineering sense, infrastructures are often thought of and taught as a physical end product, an agglomeration of specialized technological and built artifacts that provide services. However, as technologies and the demand for services change more and more rapidly, thinking of infrastructures as a physical, cultural, and institutional process providing an ever-changing function becomes important. This means that while an individual piece of physical infrastructure can be optimized for its function within an existing built system, infrastructure design and modernization necessarily becomes wickedly complex. Wicked complexity is the result of three competing forces that are, given the current approaches for designing and managing infrastructures, inimical to rapid and sustained change in a future marked by acceleration and uncertainty. These forces are 1) wicked problems, 2) technical complexity and lock-in, and 3) social complexity, which work together to fragment our capacity to manage change (see Figure 1).
Wicked complexity as a product of wicked problems, technical complexity, and social complexity. The three forces each and together pull our ability to change infrastructure, resulting in change become a wicked complex process (adapted from Conklin 2006). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.360.f1
There is a dearth of work characterizing engineered infrastructures as wicked complex systems, but it is becoming more widely accepted that this is the case. The complexity of infrastructures has often been defined in terms of physical structure, or technical complexity (Brown, Beyeler and Barton, 2004; O'Rourke, 2007). Oughton et al., (2018) characterize infrastructure complexity by contrasting the properties of general and complex adaptive systems at the interface of supply and demand. They posit that given emergent behavior and self organization, instability and robustness, dynamics and evolution, adaptiveness, and agent diversity, infrastructures exhibit the key features of complex adaptive systems. Arbesman (2016) describes technical complexity as resulting from several dominant technological forces including accretion (the accumulation and layering of technologies and assets over long periods of time), interaction (the often indeterminate number of components are interacting in ways that we no longer fully comprehend), and edge cases (we sometimes design hardware and processes outside of standard design and operating rules). The combination of these forces, and equally complex social, financial, cultural, technological, and management forces that affect infrastructures at every scale, results in a situation where the emergent behavior, particularly when perturbed, is no longer predictable (Hall et al., 2017). While complexity has certainly been present in infrastructure management since these technologies first emerged, we contend the form of this complexity is fundamentally different. Defining infrastructure complexity in terms of physical structure is still appropriate for many purposes, of course, but rapidly becomes inadequate beyond the artifactual and short term, and especially when planning for new technologies.
There are many complexity definitions, often specific to the field and system or organization being analyzed. The Cynefin framework classifies systems as simple (the domain of best practice), complicated (the domain of experts), complex (the domain of emergence), chaotic (the domain of rapid response), and disorder (Figure 2) (Snowden and Boone, 2007). Knowing whether you're working in the complicated or complex domain when it comes to infrastructure is critical because each domain requires fundamentally different approaches. The complex domain (the realm of unknown unknowns) is one where the inability to predict emergent behaviors means that we can only understand what happened a posteriori. Emergence (the ability of individual components of a large system to work together to give rise to dramatic and diverse behavior) is often central to characterizing a system as complex (Cilliers, 2002; Martin and Helmerson, 2014). While emergence is often front and center, complexity is determined from a number of characteristics including the number of elements, interactions that are dynamic, rich, non-linear and short range, feedback loops, system openness, non-equilibrium behavior, histories, and (related to emergence) elements which are ignorant of the behavior of the whole system (Cilliers, 2002).
Cynefin framework applied to infrastructure. For each domain, the approach differs. The Complex domain requires an approach that is capable of testing options and collecting data on how those options perform, and then repeating (framework adapted from Snowden and Boone 2007). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.360.f2
The critical boundary for engineers is between complicated and complex. At this transition, optimization tools become obsolete as social, institutional, political, and economic forces come into play and together render quantitative analyses as the dominant approach for addressing the challenges insufficient. Conklin (2006) describes social complexity as a force of fragmentation that results from the number and diversity of players involved in a project (wickedness is another source of fragmentation in decision making). The more parties involved, the more different the stakeholders are, the greater the diversity of perspective they bring, and the more socially complex a decision making process becomes, thereby making collective intelligence a challenge and consensus virtually impossible to achieve (Conklin, 2006).
The somewhat ambiguous boundary between highly complicated technological artifacts or subsystems (for which optimization techniques are often appropriate) and wicked complexity (where satisficing techniques are necessary) occurs when operational requirements mean that infrastructures cannot simply be defined in terms of physical assets, but must be viewed as a process. Sometimes one is simply adding a component where the design is significantly constrained by existing function and assets – a tower to an existing urban mobile device network, or a new water feed to a subdivision. But especially as human, natural, and built systems integrate in new ways at virtually all scales, the fundamental goal of infrastructures – not simply to create an amalgamation of hardware, but to provide the resources and services needed to afford people the capabilities that build adaptive capacity and improve human well-being (Clark, Seager and Chester, 2018) – becomes more explicit. At this point, wicked complexity begins to dominate engineering decisions, from design to operation to maintenance to system evolution, and the lens of the engineer must broaden to consider not only the physical structures but also the institutional, cultural, financial, etc. forces that affect infrastructures, both in the immediate environment, and more broadly as the infrastructure process evolves over time.
The pioneering work of Rittel and Webber (1973) provide the foundational criteria for wicked problems that for the most part endures today. Instead of simply reiterating their 10 criteria, we'll instead describe them in the context of infrastructures:
Wicked problems have no definitive problem formulation. Providing services at reasonable costs, given financial constraints, competing stakeholder views, environmental and social implications of various options, and with agility and flexibility to adapt to changing conditions means that no clear formulation can be stated containing all of the information the decision maker needs to choose a single objective solution.
There is no stopping rule for infrastructures, they are an evolving process that must constantly be re-examined. A chosen infrastructure solution today is typically the result of a group of decision makers saying it's good enough, and had there been more time or resources, or different social or political constraints, a different solution may very well have been chosen.
Infrastructure solutions are not true-or-false, but better or worse, and each stakeholder may have a different evaluation of what these terms mean given the particular situation. It is usually not the case in these situations that a choice will be regarded as optimal by any party; rather, the best choice may be one that meets the minimal requirements of most stakeholders (in other words, the one that satisfices, rather than optimizes, from their perspective), often the result of a political process that results in compromise.
There is no immediate and no ultimate test of an infrastructure solution. The implementation of an infrastructure will lead to direct and indirect consequences over an extended time period.
Given the sheer scale and reach of infrastructures, their implementation is often a one-shot operation, particularly for rigid systems (i.e., transportation, water, power, etc.). Often there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error, and every attempt counts significantly. This does not mean, however, that engineers and engineering institutions such as universities and professional organizations should not explicitly embrace continual learning processes, because the effectiveness of a particular one-shot solution may well inform better practices elsewhere. For example, the Big Dig in Boston is a one-shot solution in that it is not significantly modifiable at this point, but the learning from what went well and didn't, and what performed socially and environmentally in the ways anticipated, can be applied to similar activity in, say, New York City or Toronto or Brazilia. Agile and flexible infrastructures (such as ICT) on the contrary show that they can be experimented with on large scales (e.g., current 5G deployment) (Oughton et al., 2018; Gilrein et al., 2019).
There are no criteria by which we can say that all infrastructure solutions to a problem have been identified. As such, judgement dictates whether one should enlarge the set of solutions being considered.
Despite having implemented infrastructure solutions in similar forms for centuries, there is almost always a new set of distinguishing features for the next problem that makes it unique. This is especially true because, while purely technological elements of the system may be similar to predecessors, it is seldom the case that the environmental, social, political, and economic dimensions are the same. Rittel and Webber (1973) use a subway system as an example — a design that worked for one city as the template for another is likely disastrous as commuter preferences and urban form may outweigh similarities in subway network structure.
Change in infrastructures is often incremental, with the hope that each small step contributes to systematic improvement. However, this can be dysfunctional: tackling the need for change on such a small level can, by avoiding foundational improvement, create even more systemic inertia against fundamental, non-incremental change. Thus, for example, incremental improvement in the U.S. air traffic system has kept an obsolete infrastructure functioning (USGAO, 2017), but the cost is continuing and growing inefficiency, and a more complex upgrade process when it is finally started.
The modes of reasoning for why we pick infrastructure solutions often far outweigh the choices available through scientific discourse. The problems that these solutions are attempting to address are often based on the most powerful decision makers' world views. When engineers and decision makers are not trained in satisficing techniques, or in recognizing the impact of their own worldviews, decisions are often costly and socially damaging (this was one of the critiques of the high modernists such as Robert Moses).
The goal of infrastructures is typically not to find some truth, but instead to improve some characteristic of the world. The problems that infrastructure managers must deal with don't have boundaries and their causes are often obfuscated.
The challenges associated with affecting change in infrastructures that are wicked and complex are exponentially greater and require fundamentally different approaches than what we've historically used. The technical and social forces of complexity combined with the wicked problems that infrastructures are more and more recognized at the center of (including e.g., access to water, affordable housing, safe, efficient, and affordable mobility, public health; see Chester 2019) result in a fragmentation of priorities driven by increasing numbers of stakeholders that render traditional approaches (i.e., approaches that emphasize quantitative analysis and optimization) obsolete. In the Anthropocene it appears that infrastructures are complex adaptive systems that engage wicked complexity on a routine basis. As such agility and flexibility are needed because of unpredictable emergent properties, and wicked complexity adds the need for satisficing.
In today's post-modernist environment, where many conflicting demands must be integrated in infrastructure projects and managed by engineers, designers, and planners, satisficing is the only viable methodology. This can be seen not just in infrastructure, but in the "adaptive management" methods that are now becoming popular for managing "natural" infrastructures such as the Everglades (Berkes, Folke and Colding, 1998;Allenby, 2012; National Research Council, 2018a). The role of the infrastructure planner and designer has shifted from prescribing a professional solution to a given situation, a high modernist framing of the professional's role, to being the expert facilitator of the emergence of a design that satisfices enough stakeholders, and the legacy systems and natural infrastructure components, to be both stable and viable (Allenby, 2012).
What the infrastructure manager needs to do today is very different than in the past. In many parts of the world, tribalism is the new norm (Chua, 2018; Hawkins et al., 2018), where solutions are dictated not by technical performance measures but instead by "acceptable enough" to all parties. While having multiple contrasting viewpoints may do a better job at bringing more voices to the table, it is inimical to flexibility and agility, the ability to change infrastructure quickly thereby creating adaptive capacity. This is not to say that having community and multi-stakeholder perspectives involved in infrastructure decision making is necessarily a bad thing (this is crucial to ensuring that no party asserts their will over others). Instead, we must recognize that the fragmentation that comes with competing and sometimes polarized viewpoints means that there are competing narratives for what infrastructures should and should not do. A wicked problem is one where you don't understand the problem until you have a solution. This social complexity creates situations where different stakeholders think that their problem is the only and right problem (e.g., the result of where they're from or the mission of their organization), and as such collective inquiry into what the problem is, is prevented (Conklin, 2006;Allenby, 2012, 92–97). The stronger the network of stakeholders, the less agile and flexible the system. The challenge is not to deny the involvement of stakeholders but to recognize that taken as a whole they are a significant design constraint that must be considered, and engineers must try to design for agility and flexibility in spite of it.
The processes of infrastructure design, delivery, management, and change will need to be as fast as the relevant changes in demand, technologies, demographics, and earth systems in the Anthropocene. Optimizing, the current dominant paradigm, is likely wholly insufficient for the future. The fragmentation that has resulted from the wicked complexity that has emerged in the contemporary infrastructure process produces disincentives to embrace change and plan for uncertainty. In an increasingly divided and tribal society, even something as fundamental to infrastructure design and management as problem definition becomes ambiguous and contested. Thus, rather than simply designing a solution to a given problem, the engineer will often find herself needing to satisfice both on problem definition and design solution. Wicked problems can fragment direction and mission since agreeing on the problem to develop a solution is challenging. Furthermore, social complexity fragments stakeholder unity through competing interests and identities. Given these challenges, we must seriously question whether optimizing is sufficient in terms of significant infrastructure transformation for the Anthropocene. Even if we seek a different approach, the organizational competencies needed to address complexity in infrastructure institutions are not for the most part present.
A major challenge that infrastructures face in adapting is that their managing institutions are largely configured around bureaucracies designed to address complicated (rather than complex) systems and typically single disciplines (e.g., transportation, water, power, etc.). Bureaucracies – characterized by hierarchical organizations, jurisdictional responsibilities, intentional and abstract rules, production and administration belonging to the office, appointed officials, and career employment, designed to uphold either a legal-rational or charismatic order – became largely commonplace during the industrial era (Constas, 1958; Weber, 2009; Diefenbach and By, 2012). Ancient states were largely designed to administer, expand and protect their domains from neighboring peoples. Industrialization (in addition to representative governance and nationalism) added many new tasks to bureaucracies, transforming their role in the modern era. Public services, and their associated infrastructures, became necessary for democratizing governments during the colonial era, and bureaucracies became commonplace in the management of these services, many emerging during industrialization (Riggs, 1997). While private sector infrastructure agencies are not entirely subject to the same constraints as public agencies, the policies, rules, norms, codes, etc. that govern public infrastructure likely contribute to firms also operating largely within siloes.
Modern infrastructure systems are largely managed by bureaucratic structures that are designed for the industrial era, both in terms of the problems that we were facing and the intellectual needs to address those problems. The engineering education process largely reflects this. With the industrial era came a need to develop competencies around complicated problems. Production was becoming increasingly concentrated at factories (instead of agriculture) and the rapidly developing technologies and machinery of mass production needed workers who could understand and work with machines; creativity was not desired (Nason, 2017). Hierarchies – the staple structure of bureaucracies – were used to organize tasks vertically within organizations establishing functional and social relationships (Weber, Parsons and Tawney, 1930). Expertise was compartmentalized, access to information constrained, and resources earmarked for particular classes of workers (Diefenbach and By, 2012). These hierarchies work against creativity: they emphasize efficiency of the status quo process, they strand ideas between levels of management within the hierarchy (and each has competing priorities and doesn't necessarily have the authority to implement new ideas), and given the separation of problems management often doesn't understand the value of the idea. This organizational structure in many ways persists in current infrastructure management institutions, as well as in the educational structures that feed them. Compounding the traditional challenges is wicked complexity; not only are these bureaucracies expected to efficiently deliver public services but they must do so given the wicked problems, technical complexity, and social complexity that has become endemic.
Adaptive management that starts at infrastructure institutions and embraces the competencies needed to deal with complexity, emphasizes agility and flexibility of operations and physical hardware, and recognizes that infrastructure as an ever changing process will be necessary for the non-stationary norms and rapidly changing needs of the Anthropocene.
Infrastructure management in the Anthropocene will require new competencies that give systems the capacity to quickly adapt to deliver resources in non-stationary and ever more complex environments. The models of adaptive management and other successful strategies that have been developed for managing complexity should serve as a foundation for transforming the processes of infrastructure design, planning, operation, maintenance, and evolution. Here we don't pretend to have a final vision of how this process is explicitly structured. On the contrary, we view the process of infrastructure as one that will need to evolve, and the forms that it takes at any given time in the future will need to reflect the complex environments and challenges of the time, most of which cannot be forecast, certainly not with any detail. However, the competencies associated with adaptive management strategies to address wicked complexity can serve as a guidebook.
Lessons can be learned for hard infrastructure systems from the practices developed by socio-ecological system (SES) practitioners. SES practitioners have been developing best practices for ecosystem resource management to coordinate resources in the face of complexity and uncertainty (Armitage et al., 2009; Chaffin, Gosnell and Cosens, 2014). Those adaptive management practices produce a "flexible system of resource management, tailored to specific places and situations, supported by, and working in conjunction with, various organizations at different scales." The SES literature is abound with successful implementations of adaptive management for complex and rapidly changing social-ecological systems including the management of the Kristianstads Vattenrike region in Sweden (balancing development, conservation, and ecological services to address water quality and biodiversity collapse), preservation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia (experiencing coral bleaching, overfishing, and eutrophication), and management of fishing in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica (experiencing fish stock collapse). The commonality in these examples was a looming crisis that triggered a few individuals to build trust and knowledge, connect networks, and develop a shared system vision (Schultz et al., 2015). Indeed there has been much work to frame infrastructure within socio-ecological systems (Geels, 2002; Markolf et al., 2018).
It is useful, for example, to compare recent adaptive management approaches to the Florida Everglades, challenged by environmental activism, phosphate mining, agricultural interests, and population growth and developers, with the experience of the Aral Sea since the Soviet Union diverted much of its inflow to growing cotton after World War II. Both regions are highly complex economically and culturally, but the use of adaptive management principles in the Everglades has prevented the economic, social, and ecological collapse that the Aral Sea region has suffered. A primary reason is that in the case of the Everglades, the wickedly complex nature of regional management was recognized, while in the case of the Aral Sea, the system was optimized for cotton production for export purposes (Allenby, 2012; National Research Council, 2018b). It's critical that engineers and infrastructure managers develop competencies to be able to support and facilitate adaptive management practices.
First and foremost, infrastructure managers will need to be able to distinguish between complicated, and even chaotic problems, and those characterized by wicked complexity. Distinctions will have to be made between systems where wicked complexity is relatively low, and systems where it is high. Engineers have in recent history largely operated in and been trained for the complicated domain, that of known unknowns, where management processes largely focus on unique skills associated with diagnosing and optimizing cause and effect relationships (e.g., what types of bridges could a city build across a canyon given geologic conditions, traffic requirements, and a budget). The complex domain is unique in that it's characterized by unpredictability and flux that lead to emergence that cannot be predicted (unknown unknowns) (Snowden and Boone, 2007). We won't know what will work and have to accept that the best that we'll be able to do is educated guesses and a commitment to a dynamic process where we constantly reassess what's happened, and adjust course.
Examples of complex infrastructure challenges that face engineers are plenty. What is the right solution to a new tourism road through the Peruvian rainforest for access to Incan ruins, considering highly sensitive ecosystem impacts, preserving cultural heritage, design for climate change and possibly more extreme rainfall events, autonomous vehicles, etc.? The likely answer is we don't know. Sure, we could build a typical asphalt road for modern automotive technology. But this road – given the unpredictability and relationships of the factors mentioned – may be insufficient for the conditions, technologies, and needs two decades from now. Instead, infrastructure processes that embrace complexity would focus on experimental management practices and a flexibility in understanding what does and does not work, and commitment to trying something different later on once new information emerges.
Additionally, it's reasonable to expect infrastructure managers to have to operate in the domain of chaos more frequently in the future. Catastrophic events like climate change driven natural hazards, and terrorist attacks (particularly cyber given how interconnected our physical infrastructure are becoming with information and communication technologies) are already becoming more common (Singer and Friedman, 2014; USGCRP, 2017; Roser, Nagdy and Ritchie, 2018) and showing how little training our infrastructure managers have for working through these situations. In chaotic situations, infrastructure managers will need to be trained to help establish order, sense where stability is and is not present, and then help support transitions back to the complexity domain (Snowden and Boone, 2007). This will require training and practice that is often absent from traditional university curricula.
Managing complex infrastructure systems will require fundamentally new approaches to training, education, and practice. The conventional infrastructure management organization is structured as a top-down hierarchy where expertise and resources are compartmentalized. Consider a hypothetical state department of transportation that has a leader at the top (often politically appointed), division directors that oversee various domains of the system (e.g., infrastructure delivery, planning, operations), and groups within those divisions that carry out the mission. In this structure, sharing of knowledge and resources across groups to address interdisciplinary challenges is typically infeasible and solutions to challenges are often prescribed with little opportunity for deviation. This structure emphasizes compartmentalization of knowledge and efficiency in solutions. More fundamentally, if a problem requires coordination beyond the transportation domain – say, implementing a tax structure that will encourage home office work rather than commuting to an office on bad air quality days – it is essentially impossible with the stovepiped structure of today's engineering management and education institutions. There is an obvious need to develop organizational structures that i) emphasize diversity of ideas and perspectives, and frequent opportunities for exchanging them, ii) implement infrastructures as an experiment and dynamic reassessment exercise where patterns are allowed to emerge, are studied, and new infrastructure is then implemented, and iii) emphasize the creation of new ideas over historical models. This organization would, for example, allow emerging technologies to be tested in practice, pit interdisciplinary teams against each other on the same problem, and provide workers discretionary time to pursue outside-the-box ideas (Snowden and Boone, 2007).
Combining the aforementioned SES, management, and infrastructure emerging concepts on wicked complexity, several core competencies emerge.
Shared Understanding – Prior to managing wicked complex problems, there needs to be shared understanding of the problems and a willingness to address the problems collectively. Shared understanding is the process by which stakeholders are made aware of each other's goals and concerns; it is not consensus building. Shared understanding (stakeholders know about each other's goals and concerns, they have developed trust and caring, they have created joint meaningfulness of concepts, they have established "we-ness") can lead to shared commitments (diverse group's commitment to a project's directions, goals, emerging solutions, group decisions, and actions) and ultimately collective intelligence (Conklin, 2006). The processes by which infrastructure decisions are made, both internally and externally to the organization, should be radically altered towards collective intelligence. This is of course easier said than done due to the existence of a plethora of barriers that lock-in current practice and work against radical change. Nonetheless, as environmental and social forces increasingly dictate what our future infrastructures can and cannot be in the Anthropocene, current practices that attempt to balance different constraints and perspectives without building collective intelligence appear to be increasingly insufficient.
Manage, Not Solve – Infrastructures too often are treated as physical assets designed and operated to solve a problem, whether that be, e.g., the facilitation of a volume of vehicle traffic or a minimum water pressure and volume. Yet in the face of increasing change, the solution will need to constantly evolve. As such, infrastructure managers will need to adopt a perspective that embraces change and that acknowledges a system is only temporary, may be the right fit for a short period of time, and is likely unacceptable for the not too distant future. Management then focuses on the changing conditions that infrastructures need to adapt to. This requires making decisions under deep uncertainty. In the past, infrastructures could be framed as artifactual (Allenby, 2012); going forward, they must be reconceptualized as a process.
Try, Learn, Adapt – Complex environments are not conducive to command-and-control top-down strategies; there's just too much distributed information, changing too rapidly, for a centralized command-and control approach to work. Instead, an approach that emphasizes experimentation as a process of learning to better enable adaptive capacities is needed. Here infrastructure organizations, the general public, and financiers need to allow for some level of failure. For example, a region could establish that a portion of transportation infrastructure funds be routinely used for testing for new technologies, such as alternative materials or traffic management, with the recognition that many of these technologies will not be implemented at scale but will provide valuable insights into what the agency needs to do to prepare for disruptive conditions. In addition, those responsible for infrastructure must learn to distribute management of infrastructure out to the network; decisions should be made at the most local level possible (a principle of "subsidiarity" that in politics has become familiar, particularly in the European Union).
Complexity Mindset – The training that many of our infrastructure managers receive focuses on managing complicated problems, often through the use of a predefined set of options or processes, and with explicit or implicit reference to optimization techniques. A complexity mindset accepts that complexity exists, that it needs to be managed differently, and that there are limitations on what a manager can control (Nason, 2017). A complexity mindset focuses on "what can be" over "what is", and relies on satisficing, not optimization, mental models and methods. Planning is different in each case. With complicated systems, planning is done to determine paths which are then followed. With complexity, it is the process of constantly planning that informs action; the plans themselves are seldom, if ever, implemented. As General (later President) Eisenhower observed, "In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable" (Nixon, 2013). It isn't the plan that's important; it is the act of planning, thinking about the possibilities, the interconnectedness of problems, and the emerging properties of the system.
Every indication is that the competing forces that now define how infrastructures are implemented, and that are driving increasing complexity today, will continue if not accelerate. Unpredictable and accelerating evolution is occurring across the entire technological frontier. Social and political fragmentation and complexity is growing (Fukuyama, 2014; Kissinger, 2014). Environmental pressures, and associated perturbations in human demographics and migration patterns, as well as unpredictable shifts in natural cycles and systems, are set to accelerate. Urbanization continues to accelerate, especially in developing countries. There is thus no question that demands on technologists, managers, and engineers working on infrastructure systems are also going to grow. New approaches are needed to create coherence. For example, if water demand is increasing, then a treatment plant will need to be created based on the forecasted demand, funding may need to be secured from a new tax measure, political and social factors such as NIMBYism will need to be managed, and water rights may need to be secured. Acceptance by local communities, activist organizations (which often have different if not mutually exclusive agendas), and regional water users and managers will be required. Designs that are flexible enough to adapt to unpredictable changes in supply and demand because of, e.g., climate change, must be developed, and metrics for tracking performance of the infrastructure, and the systems context of the infrastructure, developed and institutionalized. The complicated task of designing the water treatment plant is possibly the simplest exercise in the whole process, and is perhaps the only one the infrastructure manager has been trained for.
In the Anthropocene, infrastructures are an integration of co-evolving human, built, and natural systems, and inevitably are characterized by wicked complexity. As such, engineers and infrastructure managers will need to shift their mindset away from optimizing as the dominant approach, towards satisficing. They will need to shift their thinking about infrastructures from the delivery of physical assets which meet a defined and relatively stable need, to a process by which physical systems are designed, built and operated in response to shifting priorities, new technologies and social practices, and irreducible uncertainty.
This work was in part supported by the National Science Foundation's Urban Resilience to Extremes Sustainability Research Network [grant number 1444755].
The authors have no competing interests. MVC is an Associate Editor at Elementa. He was not involved in the review of this manuscript.
Allenby
The Theory and Practice of Sustainable Engineering
Pearson Prentice Hall
'Reconceptualizing Infrastructure in the Anthropocene'
Issues in Science and Technology
). Available at:http://issues.org/34-3/reconceptualizing-infrastructure-in-the-anthropocene/.
Arbesman
Overcomplicated: Technology at the Limits of Comprehension
. Available at:https://books.google.com/books?id=HTXRCgAAQBAJ.
Berkes
Davidson-Hunt
Diduck
Marschke
McConney
Wollenberg
.'Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity'.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
. DOI:
Folke
Colding
Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience
. Available at:https://books.google.com/books?id=Q9E_ngEACAAJ.
All that is solid melts into air: the experience of modernity
.'Consideration of the origin of Herbert Simon's theory of "satisficing" (1933–1947)'.
Management Decision
'Assessing infrastructure interdependencies: the challenge of risk analysis for complex adaptive systems'
International Journal of Critical Infrastructures
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCIS.2004.003800
.'Keyword: infrastructure: How a humble French engineering term shaped the modern world'. In:
Bruun Jensen
(eds.),
Infrastructures and Social Complexity
Chaffin
Cosens
.'A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions'.
The Resilience Alliance
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06824-190356
.'Sustainability and infrastructure challenges'.
'Towards Adaptive Infrastructure: Flexibility and Agility in a Non-Stationarity Age'
Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure
Markolf
'Infrastructure and the Environment in the Anthropocene'
Journal of Industrial Ecology
. In Press. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12848
Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations
. Available at:https://books.google.com/books?id=eYtIDwAAQBAJ.
Cilliers
Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems
. Available at:https://books.google.com/books?id=OeCEAgAAQBAJ.
.'A capabilities approach to the prioritization of critical infrastructure'.
Environment Systems and Decisions
Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems
. Available at:https://books.google.com/books?id=xVRnQgAACAAJ.
Constas
'Weber's Two Concepts of Bureaucracy'
American Journal of Sociology
. Available at:https://www-jstor-org/stable/2774140. DOI:
Diefenbach
'Bureaucracy and Hierarchy – what else!?'
In: pp.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2012)0000035003
'Herbert Simon'
. Available at:https://www.economist.com/news/2009/03/20/herbert-simon.
Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy
. Available at:https://books.google.com/books?id=j6hzAwAAQBAJ.
Gandy
Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City
MIT Press (Urban and industrial environments)
. Available at:https://books.google.com/books?id=R38TXjcG-xsC. DOI:
Geels
'Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study'
Gilrein
Carvalhaes
'Concepts and Practices for Transforming Infrastructure from Rigid to Agile'
, In Press. DOI:
Thacker
Chaudry
Blainey
Oughton
'Strategic analysis of the future of national infrastructure'
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Civil Engineering
. Thomas Telford Ltd. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1680/jcien.16.00018
Cities in Civilization: Culture, Innovation, and Urban Order
Weidenfeld & Nicolson
. Available at:https://books.google.com/books?id=0AmeQgAACAAJ.
Yudkin
Juan-Torres
Hidden Tribes: A Study of America's Polarized Landscape
The Death and Life of Great American Cities
(Vintage Books ed). Available at: https://books.google.com/books?id=deqqUOjBTnUC.
Jencks
The Language of Post-modern Architecture
. Academy Editions. Available at:https://books.google.com/books?id=NhRgQgAACAAJ.
. Available at:https://books.google.com/books?id=NR50AwAAQBAJ.
The Singularity is Near
Gerald Duckworth & Company
. Available at:https://books.google.com/books?id=0d8oDwAAQBAJ.
Marchant
Herkert
The growing gap between emerging technologies and legal-ethical oversight: the pacing problem
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7
Iwaniec
Ruddell
.'Interdependent Infrastructure as Linked Social, Ecological, and Technological Systems (SETSs) to Address Lock-in and Enhance Resilience'.
Earth's Future
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000926
Helmerson
'Emergence: the remarkable simplicity of complexity'
. Available at:https://theconversation.com/emergence-the-remarkable-simplicity-of-complexity-30973.
It's not complicated: the art and science of complexity for business
University of Toronto Press
National Research Council
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review – 2018
Six Crises
. Available at:https://books.google.com/books?id=93gNMZUTWCQC.
O'Rourke
'Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies, and Resilience'
'Infrastructure as a Complex Adaptive System'
Complexity Hindawi
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3427826
'Modernity and Bureaucracy'
Public Administration Review
Rittel
.'Dilemmas in a general theory of planning'.
Policy Sciences
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Birdzell
How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation Of The Industrial World
Basic Books
. Available at:https://books.google.com/books?id=FfqR_U-Zpl8C.
Nagdy
Terrorism, Our World in Data
. Available at:https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism.
Österblom
Olsson
'Adaptive governance, ecosystem management, and natural capital'
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organization
Basingstoke, UK
Macmillan Company (Original from University of Minnesota)
Models of Man: Social and Rational
Wiley (Original from University of California)
Cybersecurity: What Everyone Needs to Know
OUP USA (What Everyone Needs To Know)
. Available at:https://books.google.com/books?id=9VDSAQAAQBAJ.
'A Leader's Framework for Decision Making'
. Available at: www.hbrreprints.org (Accessed: 5 October 2018).
Syvitski
'Anthropocene: An epoch of our making'
Global Change Magazine
. Available at:http://www.igbp.net/news/features/features/anthropoceneanepochofourmaking.5.1081640c135c7c04eb480001082.html.
USGAO
Air Traffic Control Modernization: Progress and Challenges in Implementing NextGen
. Available at:https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686881.pdf.
USGCRP
Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment
https://doi.org/10.7930/J0J964J6
The Theory of Social and Economic Organization
Free Press (A Free Press paperback)
. Available at:https://books.google.com/books?id=G3TYBu6-4G0C.
Tawney
The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism
G. Allen & Unwin, ltd. (Unwin university books)
. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?id=_jwYZNnrWqMC.
Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s)
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Supplementary Data- zip file
Recipient(s) will receive an email with a link to 'Infrastructure as a wicked complex process' and will not need an account to access the content.
*Your Email Address:
*Recipient 1:
Recipient 2:
Subject: Infrastructure as a wicked complex process
(Optional message may have a maximum of 1000 characters.)
Spatiotemporal changes in Iranian rivers' discharge
The world of underground ecology in a changing environment
Inclusive innovation in crop gene editing for smallholder farmers: Status and approaches
The imprinting effect of previous NPO work experience on social entrepreneurship
An investigation of petrochemical emissions during KORUS-AQ: Ozone production, reactive nitrogen evolution, and aerosol production
Continuous Publishing Alert
New Journal Content Alert


text:
Smithsonian Responds to Deficit Commission's Recommendation on Admission Fees
The draft report released Nov. 10 by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform recommends that the Smithsonian's annual federal appropriation be reduced by $225 million and that the loss be recouped through the imposition of admission fees at Smithsonian museums.
The Smithsonian is the national museum and has been open—free of charge—for 164 years. In a sense, Americans already pay to visit the Smithsonian with their tax dollars, which provide about two-thirds of the Smithsonian's annual budget. Because there is no admission fee, people are able to see their national treasures, participate in educational programs and visit exhibitions regardless of their ability to pay.
The Commission's recommendation that the Smithsonian charge admission would create a barrier for many audiences—those who are underserved and who would most benefit from exposure to the Smithsonian's collections, exhibitions and research.
The Commission's recommendation states that 30 million visitors come to Smithsonian museums every year. This is incorrect. The Smithsonian receives 30 million visits each year. Surveys have shown that most visitors go to more than one museum during a single visit, which means they are counted two or three times, depending on how many buildings they enter.
The recommendation does not appear to take into account the likelihood that an entrance fee may decrease the number of tourists, which would not only deprive many families of the benefit they have earned with their tax dollars, but would also have a negative impact on the business income earned in the Smithsonian's museum shops, restaurants and theaters.
Another part of the recommendation asserts that the Smithsonian has a "maintenance backlog of $2.5 billion." This is incorrect. The 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that is cited in the recommendation discussed the Smithsonian's 10-year, $250 million per year plan for facilities revitalization and maintenance. That level of funding was based on industry standards for an organization with aging buildings: $150 million per year on facilities revitalization and $100 million per year on facilities maintenance. Although the fiscal year 2010 budget gave the Smithsonian somewhat less than that amount, it has made substantial progress in renovating and repairing its physical infrastructure. There is no $2.5 billion backlog of maintenance work at the Smithsonian.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Roomdock is the best source to find cheap rooms for rent in markham area. Beautiful scenery and great city amenities in markham make it appealing for roommates looking for rooms to rent in markham. Our concierge services in markham will make you feel right at home.


text:
Antique Maps of North America/
1674 Jaillot Map of North America (first edition) (California as an Island)
AmeriqueSeptentrionale-jaillot-1674-2
The first appearance of the Marquette-Joliet Mississippi River cartography.
Amerique septentrionale divisée en ses principales parties, ou sont distingués les vns des autres les estats suivant qu'ils appartiennent presentemet aux Francois, Castillans, Anglois, Suedois, Danois, Hollandois, tirée des relations de toutes ces nations par le S. Sanson, geographe ordinaire du roy. 1674.
1674 (dated) 23 x 35 in (58.42 x 88.9 cm) 1 : 16000000
An impressive and scarce 1674 map of North America issued by Alexis-Hubert Jaillot, offered here in its first edition, and likely exhibiting preliminary data from the 1673 Marquette-Joliet Expedition. The map covers North America and Central America from Baffin Bay to the Spanish Main. It extends westward past an Insular California to include Terre de Iesso (a speculative mapping of Hokkaido) and eastwards past the Azores to include the British Isles. It includes a striking mapping the Mississippi (Chucagua), that while inaccurate in the southernmost regions, likely reflects Joliet's verbal reports from the seminal 1673 Marquette-Joliet Expedition.
Unusual Mississippi River
The Mississippi River is here identified as 'Chucagua', a term derived from the journals of the De Soto Expedition. De Soto crossed the Mississippi River in 1541, naming it after the wild garlic that grew prolifically on the river edge, name in Algonquin, shikaakwa. The term was transliterated into French for the 1670 translation of De Soto's journals by Pierre Richelet, as the 'Chucagua River'. The same is also frequently called 'De Soto's River.' Mapped here by Jaillot, the river has its outlet in 'Bahia del Spiritu Santo', likely Galveston Bay, but inland bends sharply east, then north, to roughly correspond to the Upper Mississippi. This is a cartographic innovation unique to this map and present on no known prior map. Jaillot's sources behind this cartographic innovation can only be preliminary data from the 1673 expedition of Jacques Marquette (1637 - 1675) and Louis Joliet (1645 - 1700). From the cartography, this makes sense, as the map correctly but tenuously reflects Marquette and Joliet's four-month voyage in the Upper Mississippi, as well as the fact that they turned around at the Arkansas River - thus avoiding confrontation with the Spanish to the south, but also leaving unclear the true route south and outlet of the Lower Mississippi. The records of the Marquette and Joliet voyage were not widely disseminated, and instead kept under wraps until published in 1681. Nonetheless, Joliet did return to Paris shortly after the expedition and was extensively interviewed. Jaillot, with his royal connections, would have been privileged to this information - marking this map as a state-of-the-art production and likely the first map to reveal any reconnaissance from the Marquette-Joliet Expedition.
Sanson's Cartography
Aside from the above Mississippi River data, Jaillot derived this expanded format map from the earlier work of Nicholas Sanson, a figure who revolutionized French cartography. We can trace the fundamental design of this map to two Sanson maps. First, Sanson's 1666 wall map of North America - on which most of the basic cartography is based - and which survives in only two examples. Second, Sanson's 1657 map of California, from which both maps derive their model for Insular California - itself sourced from maps referencing the English explorer Luke Foxe's expedition in search of the Northwest Passage. Thus, the form of California seen here follows the Second Sanson model or, more properly, the Luke Foxe model. It was Foxe who is credited with introducing the curious form of northern Insular California, including the Bay of Talago, the Rio de Estiete, and the unusual peninsula extending from the mainland, Agubela de Gato. The origin of this cartography beyond Foxe remains a mystery. Adopted by Sanson in 1657, this form became standard convention for the representation of Insular California until the early 18th century.
California as an Island
The idea of an insular California first appeared as a work of fiction in Garci Rodriguez de Montalvo's c. 1510 romance Las Sergas de Esplandian, where he writes
Know, that on the right hand of the Indies there is an island called California very close to the side of the Terrestrial Paradise; and it is peopled by black women, without any man among them, for they live in the manner of Amazons.
Baja California was subsequently discovered in 1533 by Fortun Ximenez, who had been sent to the area by Hernan Cortez. When Cortez himself traveled to Baja, he must have had Montalvo's novel in mind, for he immediately claimed the 'Island of California' for the Spanish King. By the late 16th and early 17th century, ample evidence had been amassed through explorations of the region by Francisco de Ulloa, Hernando de Alarcon, and others, that California was in fact a peninsula. However, by this time other factors were in play. Francis Drake had sailed north and claimed 'New Albion' (identified here on the northwest coast of California Island) near modern-day Washington or Vancouver for England. There was thus some interest in promoting Cortez's claim on the 'Island of California' to preempt English claims on the western coast of North America. This led to a major resurgence of the Insular California theory. In the early 18th century, Eusebio Kino, a Jesuit missionary, traveled overland from Mexico to California, proving conclusively the peninsularity of California.
Interesting Great Lakes
In addition to its remarkable presentation of California, this map also offers a very ephemeral perspective on the Great Lakes. While all five lakes are present, Lake Superior and Lake Michigan (Lac des Puans) are open at their westernmost extremes, thus illustrating the primitive state of exploration as well as the hopes of European traders that one of these lakes might access an inland water passage to the Pacific and the lucrative markets of Asia. Lake Huron is identified according to its original Huron-Petun (Wyandot) name, Karegnondi (tr. 'Big Lake').
Great Freshwater Lake of the Southeast
In Spanish Florida, which extends north to include most of the American Southeast, Lake Apalache, often called Lacus Aquae Dulces or the 'Freshwater Lake of the American Southeast' is noted. This lake, first mapped by De Bry and Le Moyne in the mid-16th century, is a mis-mapping of Florida's Lake George. While Theodor De Bry, working in 1565, correctly mapped the lake as part of the River May or St. John's River, subsequent navigators and cartographers in Europe erroneously associated it with the Savannah River, which instead of flowing south from the Atlantic (like the May), flowed almost directly from the northwest. This error was taken up by Hondius and Mercator who, in their 1606 map, invert the course of the May River thus situating this lake far to the northwest in Appalachia. Consequently, 'through mutations of location and size [this] became the great inland lake of the Southeast' (Cumming, 478) - an apocryphal cartographic element that would remain one of Le Moyne's most tenacious legacies. Lake Apalache was subsequently relocated somewhere in Carolina or Georgia, where Jaillot maps it and where it would remain on maps for several hundred years.
Publication History and Census
This map is identifiable as the first edition / first state because of (a) the date in the margin title, (b) the term 'milles' as the first word in the scale, and (c) the fact that none of the meridian lines run through the word 'Apache Vaqueros.' Burdon suggests that it was most certainly issued independently as early as 1674, but that it was not published in Jaillot's spectacular elephant folio L'Atlas Nouveau until that publication was finally issued in 1681. While all examples of this map are rare, and often in poor condition because of its immense size, it is notable that this is the first edition, and in near fine condition, and as such almost impossible to acquire.
Alexis-Hubert Jaillot (c. 1632- 1712) followed Nicholas Sanson (1600 - 1667) and his descendants in ushering in the great age of French Cartography in the late 17th and 18th century. The publishing center of the cartographic world gradually transitioned from Amsterdam to Paris following the disastrous inferno that destroyed the preeminent Blaeu firm in 1672. Hubert Jaillot was born in Franche-Comte and trained as a sculptor. When he married the daughter of the enlumineur de ala Reine, Nicholas Berey, he found himself positioned to inherit a lucrative map and print publishing firm. When Nicholas Sanson, the premier French cartographer of the day, died Jaillot negotiated with his heirs to republish much of Sanson's work. Though not a cartographer himself, Jaillot's access to the Sanson plates enabled him to publish numerous maps and atlases with only slight modifications and updates to the plates. As a sculptor and an artist, Jaillot's maps were particularly admired for their elaborate and meaningful allegorical cartouches and other decorative elements. Jaillot used his allegorical cartouche work to extol the virtues of the Sun King Louis IV, and his military and political triumphs. These earned him the patronage of the French crown who used his maps in the tutoring of the young Dauphin. In 1686 he was awarded the title of Geographe du Roi, bearing with it significant prestige and the yearly stipend of 600 Livres. Jaillot was one of the last French map makers to acquire this title. Louis XV, after taking the throne, replaced the position with the more prestigious and singular title of Premier Geographe du Roi. Jaillot died in Paris in 1712. His most important work was his 1693 Le Neptune Francois. Jalliot was succeed by his son, Bernard-Jean-Hyacinthe Jaillot (1673 - 1739), grandson, Bernard-Antoine Jaillot (???? – 1749) and the latter's brother-in-law, Jean Baptiste-Michel Renou de Chauvigné-Jaillot (1710 - 1780). Learn More...
Nicolas Sanson (December 20, 1600 - July 7, 1667) and his descendants were the most influential French cartographers of the 17th century and laid the groundwork for the Golden Age of French Cartography. Sanson was born in Picardy, but his family was of Scottish Descent. He studied with the Jesuit Fathers at Amiens. Sanson started his career as a historian where, it is said, he turned to cartography as a way to illustrate his historical studies. In the course of his research some of his fine maps came to the attention of King Louis XIII who, admiring the quality of his work, appointed Sanson Geographe Ordinaire du Roi. Sanson's duties in this coveted position included advising the king on matters of geography and compiling the royal cartographic archive. In 1644 he partnered with Pierre Mariette, an established print dealer and engraver, whose business savvy and ready capital enabled Sanson to publish an enormous quantity of maps. Sanson's corpus of some three hundred maps initiated the golden age of French mapmaking and he is considered the 'Father of French Cartography.' His work is distinguished as being the first of the 'Positivist Cartographers,' a primarily French school of cartography that valued scientific observation over historical cartographic conventions. The practice result of the is less embellishment of geographical imagery, as was common in the Dutch Golden Age maps of the 16th century, in favor of conventionalized cartographic representational modes. Sanson is most admired for his construction of the magnificent atlas Cartes Generales de Toutes les Parties du Monde. Sanson's maps of North America, Amerique Septentrionale (1650), Le Nouveau Mexique et La Floride (1656), and La Canada ou Nouvelle France (1656) are exceptionally notable for their important contributions to the cartographic perceptions of the New World. Both maps utilize the discoveries of important French missionaries and are among the first published maps to show the Great Lakes in recognizable form. Sanson was also an active proponent of the insular California theory, wherein it was speculated that California was an island rather than a peninsula. After his death, Sanson's maps were frequently republished, without updates, by his sons, Guillaume (1633 - 1703) and Adrien Sanson (? - 1708). Even so, Sanson's true cartographic legacy as a 'positivist geographer' was carried on by others, including Alexis-Hubert Jaillot, Guillaume De L'Isle, Gilles Robert de Vaugondy, and Pierre Duval. Learn More...
Robert Cordier (16?? - c. 1673) was a French engraver and calligrapher active in Paris in the late 17th century. Originally from Abbeville, Cordier (and his brother Louis) were known for engraving works for Nicolas Sanson, who was also from Abbeville, and Hubert Alexis Jaillot. There are records of an engraver by the same name working in Madrid from 1629 - 1653, likely the same person. He also engraved images for the work of several prominent French novelists during his career. Learn More...
Jaillot, Alexis-Hubert, Atlas Nouveau, (Paris) 1681. (Also issued separately from 1674).
Very good. Minor centerfold wear. Else very clean. Platemark visible. Blank on verso.
Map Collector's Circlem #8, Tooley, R.V. California as an island, #37. Wagner, H. R., The Cartography of the Northwest Coast of America to the Year 1800, #409b.


So, I took the risk and did the scary thing, asked for what I wanted. And it worked! Of course not neccessariy in the way I might have expected (life'll do that to you), but definitely got what I needed (life'll do that to you too).
Funny, 'cause going in I don't know what I was really asking for, I just wanted to find something where I didn't feel stuck and held back – again. And I got it.
And it's such a bloody relief. I can now relax open my life to the influence of someone I enjoy and admire. It seems a small thing, but something big has shifted for me. I'm feeling way less stuck. And maybe simply because I don't feel like I have to hold back. My soul said: go there, explore that and I was saying: no, I can't do that. Turns out I can.
I know not going where my soul pushes me makes me miserable, but sometimes it takes me a while to get on board when I don't understand the push. It invariably takes me down unexpected turns, but man, it sure takes me interesting places!
I followed that call, took the risk, did the scary thing; and without really changing much in my life, somehow everything is different. Got up this morning, looked in the mirror and said to myself: It's a brand new day, girlfriend! Don't know why I feel that, but I know it to be true.
Makes me feel so free, makes me feel like me – yep, I'm back in the groove baby! Booya!


Cassie is the alpha-dog at Mercaptor, a position secured by an IQ at least 10 points higher than the company average. She is a generous leader, only asserting herself when respect or decorum are unforgivably lacking. She is always vigilant, missing nothing, connecting dots, working angles, calculating odds, doing the math. A formidable example for human and dog alike.


text:
Home > Festivals > Slam Tent lined up for T in the Park 2016
Slam Tent lined up for T in the Park 2016
November 18, 2018 March 3, 2016 by Summer Festival Guide
Following the massive T in the Park line-up revealed by festival organisers DF Concerts and founding partner Tennent's Lager last week, organisers are delighted to reveal an impressive mix of international electronic dance acts set to play The Slam Tent at T in the Park 2016. The top line-up taking to the decks at Strathallan Castle over 8th – 10th July is:
Slam, Richie Hawtin, Jeff Mills, Marcel Dettmann, Seth Troxler, Nina Kraviz,Ricardo Villalobos b2b Raresh, Len Faki, Chris Liebing, DVS1, Guy Gerber, Skream, Daniel Avery, Speedy J, B. Traits, Petrichor
It's Jeff Mill's first Slam Tent appearance in 7 years headlining Sunday alongside Seth Troxler. Making their debut appearances are DVS1, Speedy J, Daniel Avery and Raresh – who plays a rare b2b with Ricardo Villalobos who himself last played more than a decade ago.
Techno titans Slam are renowned worldwide for their blistering back to back sets around the globe. They are the hosts of the Slam Tent four-day extravaganza. The pair always deliver one of the highlight sets of the weekend. Their productions on their own imprint Soma Records are a staple in the sets of just about every DJ at the moment from Ben Klock to Adam Beyer. Last year saw them destroy Cocoon in Ibiza with a special live show. They are also regulars at London's Fabric and host their own monthly Pressure night in Glasgow.
Richie Hawtin headlines this year's Slam Tent with a Saturday night final set. He is many things to many people – an extraordinary DJ and live performer, creator of the ENTER Experience in Ibiza, mastermind behind the Minus label, technological innovator, art aficionado and style icon. He created a unique techno sound, which is regarded as synonymous with the cities of Berlin and Detroit.
Jeff Mills first Slam Tent appearance in 7 years headlining Sunday along with Seth Troxler. He is considered the most brilliant DJ and producer of Techno music in the world. He is the most recognised representative figure of Detroit Techno. Championed for his music's relentless pursuit of hard-edged rhythms and his stripped-down, almost industrial DJ sets, Mills is the latest in a long line of Detroit-bred talent to take on an international reputation.
DJ and producer Marcel Dettmann is recognised as being one of the most influential proponents of contemporary techno. Widely associated with electronic iconic institutions, Berlin's Berghain and Hard Wax, Dettmann stays true to his roots by consistently innovating his interpretation of electronic music, and, nevertheless, integrating art deeply into the music scene.
Seth Troxler's career started in Detroit in 2002 at the age of 16 as a frequent DJ at Detroit club The Works and as a clerk at Detroit's famous Melodies and Memories record store. With these experiences Seth gained a preternatural understanding of rave, and dance music history, that now allows him to conjure up mixes and tracks like Botticelli conjured his Venus. He has consecutively got himself voted Number Three, Two and the number One in the Resident Advisor Top 100 DJ Poll, landed much-vaunted residencies at DC10 (Ibiza), Trouw in (Amsterdam) and Output (New York) and opened series of much-lauded pop-up restaurants around East London called 'Smokey Tails'.
How much do you really know about Nina Kraviz? She's a Russian techno DJ, an accomplished producer, one of dance music's breakthrough names of the last five years. True enough, but there's so much more to her story than that. She's one of electronic music's most interesting characters, someone who has stuck to her musical guns since day one, someone who has wide-ranging roots that run deep in the past, yet she's also the embodiment of the future. Her signature sound is a raw blend of house and techno with a very acidic feel. If that feels very now, Kraviz has a lot to do with it.
Ricardo Villalobos: Born in Chile, raised in Germany, world citizen – that pretty much sums up Ricardo's life, geographically speaking. Ricardo's inexhaustible creativity and innovation and his unfailing feel for the crowd make him an outstanding artist in the contemporary world of electronic music.
Raresh is definitely one of the fundamental figures of the up-to-date electronic movement. Born in Bacau, the clubbing scene enchained him at the age of 15, when he started playing in a small club in town, marking his turntable ascension from the age whereupon most of the youngsters are still playing football in the courtyard.
Berlin based DJ, producer and label owner Len Faki is of the most outstanding and in-demand artists in techno's present age. He is an internationally requested DJ, whose productions and remixes are played by techno's most prominent names. Being a resident at Berlin's prime techno club Berghain since it's opening in 2004 keeps him open-minded as both DJ and producer.
Chris Liebing is one of the artists in the steadily and rapidly growing world of electronic music who has faithfully dedicated the past 25 years of his life to the performance, production, distribution and broadcasting of Techno on a global level. He has run a club and several successful club nights, has held residencies in many of the most prestigious venues worldwide, produced his own music and the music of other artists, founded record labels, hosted radio shows, won awards for different branches of his professional efforts and has been an unshakable pillar and devoted ambassador of innovative Techno.
Zak aka DVS1, continues to move floors with a combination of deep musical knowledge, unparalleled enthusiasm, and a vinyl collection of more than 30,000 records. Zak's deep roots and his bold uncompromising nature have won him great respect as a passionate and outspoken defender and promoter quality music.
Ollie 'Skream' Jones is on a major roll. The 29 year old Croydon DJ, producer and original dubstepper has seen his career explode even further since taking inspiration from his friend and associate Jackmaster amongst others leading him to veer away from the genre he helped to create to play more House & Techno & even some Disco. He has become a global star and a firm favourite in Scotland.
Guy Gerber has always favoured the road less traveled. The Israeli DJ thrives on confounding expectations. What other underground DJ could collaborate with one of hip-hops biggest moguls, Puff Daddy, or start a left-field night at one of Ibiza's most commercial clubs, Pacha? What other producer blends the worlds of melancholy and euphoria so effortlessly, or turns in a breakup album as an official.
Since the early nineties, Speedy J has spearheaded labels like Plus 8, Novamute and Warp. After the albums G Spot (1993) and Ginger (1995), as techno developed into a dominating force on many dance floors worldwide, Jochem Paap chose to pursue other exciting avenues. On Public Energy No. 1 (1997) and A Shocking Hobby (2000) the sound wizard exchanged flowing, harmonious techno for a much more complex formula filled with colliding samples, crackling rhythms and tremendously thrilling turns. As a DJ, Speedy J is still as busy as ever, touching down in the most important venues and festivals worldwide every weekend. At the same time Electric Deluxe Presents has swelled into a globetrotting brand with showcases scheduled for various major electronic festivals on the horizon.
If the main motivation whilst making Drone Logic was to take the listener on a hi-fidelity trip for the duration of his debut album, then Daniel Avery emphatically succeeded. From Water Jump's hypnotic pulse and punch through to the crystalline click of closer Knowing We'll Be Here via the title track's elemental acid swirl and New Energy's take on Neon Lights relocated to a post-midnight cab ride through London, Avery's debut pushed and pulled at the senses and blurred the boundaries between dance floor and home listening experience.
B. Traits is a skilled producer, DJ And radio presenter, bridging underground music from techno to jungle to house. You should certainly expect the unexpected where B.Traits is concerned – but if there's something you can predict, it's that whatever comes next will be unique, and it will be big.
The man behind the Petrichor project Simon Stokes, has been gradually working his way up the ranks in his home city's scene and firmly established himself within the Soma hierarchy. His analogue focused, dream like sound straddles the boundaries between electronica, house and techno. He recently released his debut album Mångata to critical acclaim, an intricate, multifaceted album that draws on many spheres of influence, designed as a singular listening piece.
Announced so far for T in the Park 2016 are:
FRIDAY 8TH JULY: The Stone Roses, Disclosure, Courteeners, Alesso, Jamie xx, James Morrison, Frightened Rabbit, Oliver Heldens, Rodrigo y Gabriela, Hannah Wants, Bear's Den, Fun Lovin' Criminals, Krept & Konan, The Coral, The Temperance Movement, Oh Wonder
SLAM Friday: Len Faki, Ricardo Villalobos b2b Raresh, DVS1, Petrichor (live)
SATURDAY 9TH JULY: Calvin Harris, Bastille, The 1975, The Last Shadow Puppets, Catfish and the Bottlemen, Jess Glynne, Kaiser Chiefs, Travis, Tinie Tempah, Tom Odell, Jack Garratt, Stiff Little Fingers, Shed Seven, Disciples, Rat Boy, Maxi Jazz & The E-Type Boys
SLAM Saturday: Richie Hawtin, Slam, Nina Kraviz, Guy Gerber, Skream, Daniel Avery, B-Traits
SUNDAY 10TH JULY: Red Hot Chili Peppers, LCD Soundsystem, Chase & Status, Faithless, Major Lazer, James Bay, Jake Bugg, Frank Turner & the Sleeping Souls, Craig David's TS5, Slaves, Maximo Park, John Grant, Nathaniel Rateliff & The Night Sweats, FIDLAR, Blossoms
SLAM Sunday: Jeff Mills, Seth Troxler, Chris Liebing, Marcel Dettmann, Speedy J
Categories Festivals, T in the Park Tags Jeff Mills, Marcel Dettmann, Nina Kraviz, Richie Hawtin, Seth Troxler, Slam, T in the Park Post navigation


text:
Q: Почему нельзя создать экземпляр компонента в юнити? Почему нельзя сделать RigidBody body = new RigidBody(), вместо GetComponent<RigidBody>? Как это работает с точки зрения C#?

A: Компонент не может существовать сам по себе, он существует только в экосистеме GameObjectта. GameObject его создает, апдейтит, отправляет калбеки типа Start() или OnCollisionEnter() и уничтожает.
Для добавления нового компонента используется AddComponent<T>(). Не все компоненты могут быть на GameObject в множественном количестве, можно добавить хоть 10 AudioSorce, но RigidBody может быть только один, из-за атрибута [DisallowMultipleComponent] во избежание противоречий того что объект имеет тело массой 10 подверженной гравитации и тело массой 100500 не подверженное гравитации одновременно. Некоторые компоненты не могут существовать без других как FixedJoint не может существовать без RigidBody из-за атрибута [RequireComponent(typeof(Rigidbody))] и добавляется автоматически и удалить его будет не возможно пока на нем FixedJoint или другой компонент который в нем нуждается. За всем этим следит GameObject.
MonoBehaviourы наследуют свойство gameObject, объект к которому он принадлежит. GetComponent<T>() это gameObject.GetComponent<T>(), как и transfomr, которой тоже компонент это gameObject.GetComponent<Transform>() (но уже кешированный). MonoBehaviour неразрывно связан с GameObject.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


One of my favorite Pope Francis stories is when he celebrated his 77th birthday in 2013 by inviting three homeless men (and their dog) to share breakfast with him. This took place the week after Time magazinenamed Pope Francis as their person of the year. I imagine that there were plenty of well-connected, powerful, and famous people who would have been happy to join Pope Francis for a meal on his birthday. But Francis chose to turn the values of our society upside down by inviting those whom our society deems as the least important to a place of honor at his table. Isn't this the same thing that Jesus is inviting us to do in today's gospel?
Pope Francis has asked the Society of Jesus to "focus on the peripheries." Who are the people living on the peripheries in our homes, schools, workplaces, local and global communities? How can we invite them to a place of honor at our tables?
—Dave Lawler is the Director of Campus Ministry at Creighton Preparatory School in Omaha, NE.
One of my favorite Pope Francis stories is when he celebrated his 77th birthday in 2013 by inviting three homeless men (and their dog) to share breakfast with him. This took place the week after Time magazine named Pope Francis as their person of the year. I imagine that there were plenty of well-connected, powerful, and famous people who would have been happy to join Pope Francis for a meal on his birthday. But Francis chose to turn the values of our society upside down by inviting those whom our society deems as the least important to a place of honor at his table. Isn't this the same thing that Jesus is inviting us to do in today's gospel?
New Revised Standard Version, copyright 1989, by the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States ofAmerica. Used by permission. All rights reserved. USCCB approved.
Lord, help me see beyond stereotypes and public images to the see the real person and go beyond any label. For it is through others that you come to me in daily life and reveal yourself. You are never far. I want to see you in the deepest possible sense. Only then can I truly become your disciple. I need to hear you saying to me, "I want to stay in your house today." I want to open the door and welcome you in.
Jesus is passing by; Zacchaeus is ready. He climbs a tree to assure himself of a good view. Little did Zacchaeus think Jesus would actually notice him, stop and invite himself to dine in his home.
Jesus continually passes by. But do I take steps to notice him? Do I recognize him in my family, my co-workers, the elderly person in the grocery line, the homeless person begging outside the local supermarket? Do I see him in the face of refugees on the evening news? Do I see him in the victims of senseless violence on our city streets?
It is so easy to categorize people and not experience them as individual persons through whom the Lord reveals himself. He takes notice of me through others. He stands at my door and knocks. Am I ready to open and offer him hospitality?


These tender, hot, and amazing Sweet Potato Rolls are so delicious — you'd never believe they're actually good for you!
So…I have a confession to make.
I like rolls. A lot.
If a restaurant serves them as a complimentary offering, I'm probably not passing them up.
Because, as we've covered, I like rolls.
I like buttery rolls. Duh.
I will eat them on a train. I will eat them in the rain.
The problem with rolls, however, is they aren't usually clean, meaning they're usually packed full of butter, salt, and refined flour. So, I figured it was time to make my own homemade rolls.
How Do You Make Rolls Healthy?
What's The Best Kind of Yeast For Homemade Rolls?
Yeast can be a tricky thing. Sometimes, even though I usually think I understand yeast, I'll find a recipe that calls for a certain type of yeast that I either don't have on hand or don't know about. Hopefully, you will find this explanation useful and can look to it in the future as a reference.
There are two types of dry yeast: (Regular) Active Dry Yeast and Rapid-Rise Yeast. Though there are some minor differences in shape and nutrients, Rapid-Rise Yeast is (pretty much) the same as Instant Yeast and Bread Machine Yeast. This is where understanding yeast can definitely get confusing.
These two types of dry yeast can be used interchangeably, with some limitations. Though Bread Machine Yeast is faster-rising and is specially formulated for bread machines, as its texture is finely granulated to hydrate easily when combined with flour, Active Dry Yeast may also be used in bread machines (though it but may not yield completely equal results). The advantage of the Rapid-Rise Yeast is the rising time is half that of the Active Dry and it only needs one rising. Though this is an advantage, you do sacrifice some flavor and texture by speeding up the rising process as the yeast does not have time to develop its own flavor. Also, Rapid-Rise Yeast is a little more potent than Active Dry Yeast and can be mixed in with your dry ingredients directly.
Some recipes call for dissolving the yeast first in a warm liquid and then adding this active yeast mixture to the flour while others call for the yeast first being added to the flour, followed by the liquid. Why is this? The dissolving of the yeast first in a warm liquid is done to make sure the yeast is fresh and active. Since yeast is a living organism, it is possible the organisms have perished which would result in no leavening. Though this step probably doesn't really need to be done any longer because of how reliable dry yeast is today, some bakers still feel it's a good idea to test the yeast to make sure it is still active before adding it to the flour. Active Dry Yeast works just as well as Instant Yeast, but its instructions require you to activate it in a little bit of warm water before being added to the rest of the ingredients.
Let's get real now. If you're like me and you don't usually bake bread, nor do you feel like you're particularly good at it, I hope you still try this recipe. One. Because they're delicious. Two. Because they're actually pretty forgiving. Three. Because rolls.
I'm really not usually one to bake bread other than quick rise, no knead bread (which I love) so taking the time to proof the yeast, let the dough rise TWICE is a big commitment for me.
That being said, your prize at the end of just about 2 hours of mostly waiting is a batch of hot, fresh, buttery rolls from the oven.
What's In a Sweet Potato Roll?
All in all, I'm pretty darn happy with these sweet potato rolls. They are flavorful, soft, tender, and dense – just like a tasty roll should be.
BTW I've also turned them into hamburger buns by just flattening them down instead of squishing together.
Pretty simple, right? Shockingly easy to make these homemade sweet potato rolls!
In case you're concerned about the honey butter glaze I brush on the top and you're thinking I'm crazy for using butter on these rolls… Believe it or not, grass-fed organic butter is actually considered a clean ingredient and has been shown to have great nutrients, if used in moderation. If you'd rather, you could prepare this glaze with coconut oil instead. Both work beautifully.
These buttery, hot, and amazing Sweet Potato Rolls are so delicious that you'd never believe they're actually good for you!
First, we need to proof the yeast to make sure it's active. To do this heat a cup of unsweetened almond milk in a sauce pan until heated through, but not too hot to touch. Remove from the heat, and stir in 1 teaspoon of raw honey until dissolved, then gently stir in a packet of active dry yeast. Set the yeast mixture aside to proof for 5-10 minutes. It should become bubbly and foamy. If it doesn't, go grab yourself some new yeast.
Now, in the bowl of a food processor, add sweet potato puree, 1/4 cup raw honey, eggs, melted and cooled coconut oil, and sea salt. Process until combined.
Add in flour combination of whole wheat pastry flour and spelt flour in 3-4 batches, pulsing to distribute the flour.
Slowly pour in the proofed yeast mixture and continue to process until everything is well-incorporated.
The dough should be sticky, but hold together.
Lightly flour a clean, flat surface and lay the dough out onto it.
Sprinkle a little more flour on top of the dough, and knead until the dough forms a smooth, uniform ball, about 2 minutes.
If the dough is too sticky to work with, you can add more flour, a tablespoon at a time, until you can handle it without it overly sticking to everything.
Transfer the dough ball to the a large bowl which las been lightly greased with melted coconut oil, cover with plastic wrap, and set in a warm place to rise until doubled in size, about 1 hour.
Once the dough has risen, lightly flour a flat surface again and roll the dough out into an even level.
Divide the dough into halves until you have 16 equally-sized pieces.
One piece of dough at a time, pinch all of the edges together to form a seam and roll the dough into a ball.
Place each ball, seam-side down, into a baking dish with a little space between the rolls for them to rise.
If you're wanting to make these rolls into hamburger buns, push down and flatten into a bun shape and set apart to rise instead.
Cover again with plastic wrap, and let the dough rise, another hour, or until doubled in size.
When the rolls are ready to bake, preheat your oven to 350 degrees F.
Place the rolls into the oven and bake until golden brown, about 25-30 minutes.
As the rolls are baking, you can prepare a honey butter glaze to brush over the top of the rolls.
In a small mixing bowl, combine melted unsalted organic grass-fed butter and 1 1/2 tablespoons raw honey. If you'd rather, you could prepare this glaze with coconut oil instead.
Remove the rolls from the oven and brush the glaze onto the rolls and then sprinkle with course sea salt.
This post contains affiliate links with products I use regularly and highly recommend.
Hi. I'm dying to try this recipe, but my wife and my granddaughter have to avoid gluten. Do you think casava or tapioca flour will work?
Hey! These look amazing. What are your thoughts on freezing for this recipe?
These look super yummy! Would love to try, am afraid I'll eat them all!!!
You say there are two types of yeast… but, what about wild yeast?
Would love to adapt this to use my sourdough starter.
Thank you for experimenting and sharing! I am looking forward to trying them.
What can you use instead of wheat flour? I need to make them paleo.
I haven't tried making them with paleo baking flour or almond flour, but those would be my first two top picks.
These turned out really good.