S0921800915003481 · 20 As research on socioecological systems matures, more structure and...
Transcript of S0921800915003481 · 20 As research on socioecological systems matures, more structure and...
1
2
3
This is the second and final revision of an original submission that lead to the journal article 4
Socioeconomic metabolism as paradigm for studying the biophysical basis of human societies by 5
Stefan Pauliuk and Edgar G Hertwich 6
published in Ecological Economics 7
8
The published version of the article including its correct citation can be found under 9
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915003481 10
Socioeconomic Metabolism as Paradigm for 11
Studying the Biophysical Basis of Human Societies 12
Abstract: 13
A wide spectrum of quantitative systems approaches such as life cycle assessment or 14
integrated assessment models are available to assess sustainable development strategies. 15
These methods describe certain aspects of the biophysical basis of society, which comprises 16
in-use stocks and the processes and flows that maintain and operate these stocks. Despite this 17
commonality, the methods are often developed and applied in isolation, which dampens 18
scientific progress and complicates communication between scientists and decision makers. 19
As research on socioecological systems matures, more structure and classification is needed. 20
We argue that the concept of socioeconomic metabolism (SEM), which was developed in 21
material flow analysis and material flow accounting, is a powerful boundary object that can 22
serve as paradigm for studying the biophysical basis of human society. A common paradigm 23
can facilitate model combination and integration, which can lead to more robust and 24
comprehensive interdisciplinary assessments of sustainable development strategies. We refine 25
the notion of SEM, clarify the relation between SEM and the economy, and provide a list of 26
features that we believe qualifies SEM as research paradigm. We argue that SEM as paradigm 27
can help to justify alternative economic concepts, suggest analogies that make the concept 28
more accessible, and discuss its limitations. 29
Keywords: socioeconomic metabolism; paradigm; socio-ecological system; boundary object; 30
industrial ecology; metaphor; 31
32
1. Introduction 33
1.1. The interdisciplinary systems approach to increase environmental literacy 34
Human interference with global bio-geochemical cycles has grown to a level where human 35
actions are likely to trigger epochal changes, like dangerous climatic change (IPCC, 2014; 36
UNFCCC, 1992) and a state shift in the Earth’s biosphere (Barnosky et al., 2012). A new age, 37
the anthropocene, was ushered in (Steffen et al., 2011), during which humans not only cause 38
but anticipate and respond to epochal changes by adapting to new environmental conditions 39
and by mitigating negative human impacts on the natural environment. Mitigation and 40
adaptation strategies include geoengineering, technology development and deployment, 41
economic instruments like taxes and subsidies, regulation and standards, and changes in 42
consumer choices and lifestyle. To design and successfully implement adaptation and 43
mitigation strategies for the coming global socio-metabolic transition (Krausmann and 44
Fischer-Kowalski, 2013; Krausmann et al., 2008), humans require ‘environmental literacy', 45
which is the "capability […] to appropriately read, utilize, and adapt to environmental 46
information, resources, and system dynamics" (Scholz and Binder, 2011). At present, human 47
environmental literacy is higher than ever before, and a wide range of scientific methods is 48
applied to further increase it. 49
50
The systems approach is the widely accepted epistemological basis of environmental literacy. 51
Under this approach, human society is considered a complex autopoietic system (Deutz and 52
Ioppolo, 2015; Forrester, 1968; Maturana and Varela, 1980; Meerow and Newell, 2015; 53
Rammel et al., 2007; von Bertalanffy, 1968), that is a complex system that can reproduce and 54
maintain its structures and so compensate for the inevitable losses due to the second law of 55
thermodynamics with the help of external energy and material input (Ayres and Kneese, 56
1969; Georgescu-Roegen, 1971). Human societies form a hybrid of the material or 57
biophysical realm and a symbolic or social realm (Fischer-Kowalski and Weisz, 1999), and 58
together with their natural environment, they are commonly described as socio-ecological 59
systems (SES) (Binder et al., 2013; Holling, 2001; Ostrom, 2009, 2007). SES contain many 60
interlinked bio-physical and social aspects (Spash, 2012), nonlinearities, and feedback 61
mechanisms, and they are non-deterministic because human agents use their environmental 62
literacy to deliberately change the development of the system. 63
64
The complexity of SES poses major challenges to the scientific approach to increasing 65
environmental literacy. First, researchers cannot reliably predict the development of complex 66
systems even if they understand the underlying mechanisms. Research can, however, shine 67
light on the role of different factors and illustrate potential outcomes. Second, and in the focus 68
of this work, complexity challenges boundaries between established scientific disciplines. 69
Inter- and trans-disciplinary collaboration of researchers from many fields can increase our 70
environmental literacy (Baumgärtner et al., 2008). This type of research requires certain 71
concepts about SES that are general enough to facilitate exchange among disciplines and 72
between science and the public (Brand and Jax, 2007) and that are clearly specified and well 73
described to be of practical use in the different fields. Concepts like ‘resilience’, ‘industrial 74
ecosystem’, or ‘metabolism’ can enrich science and facilitate interdisciplinary research as 75
metaphors (Ehrenfeld, 2004), boundary objects (Star and Griesemer, 1989), or even research 76
paradigms (Kuhn, 1996 [1962]). When properly communicated, their integrative power can 77
facilitate the development of new research questions and data exchange and avoid re-labeling 78
or ‘re-invention’ of existing concepts under new names. Common concepts can also motivate 79
people to stop thinking in silos of individual methods and frameworks and appreciate their 80
work as part of a spectrum of similar or complementary efforts to increase environmental 81
literacy. 82
1.2. Quantitative systems analysis of the biophysical basis of society 83
Quantitative approaches to study the biophysical basis of human societies are a central 84
component of the research on socioecological systems, and a variety of methods to study that 85
basis has developed as part of distinct research traditions. In our opinion, these research 86
traditions could benefit from the appreciation of common concepts in ways described above, 87
and the elaboration of a suitable overarching concept for these methods is the scope of this 88
work. 89
90
Descriptive research approaches include purely physical modeling approaches like material 91
flow accounting (MFA), (Eurostat, 2001; Fischer-Kowalski et al., 2011), substance or 92
material flow analysis (Baccini and Bader, 1996; Baccini and Brunner, 2012 [1991]), or 93
physical supply and use tables (SUT), (Miller and Blair, 2009; Pauliuk et al., 2015b; Suh et 94
al., 2010). Attributional or footprint-type methods include life cycle assessment (LCA), 95
(Heijungs and Suh, 2002; ISO, 2006) and environmentally extended input/output analysis 96
(EE-IO), especially multi-regional input/output analysis, (Miller and Blair, 2009; Wiedmann 97
et al., 2011). Prospective methods include the econometric, partial equilibrium, or system 98
dynamics models of the energy system that come as standalone models (Cambridge 99
Econometrics, 2014; Jebaraj and Iniyan, 2006; Pfenninger et al., 2014) or that are part of 100
integrated assessment models (de Vries et al., 2001; Loulou et al., 2005; Richardson, 2013), 101
computable general equilibrium models (CGE), (Burfisher, 2011), system dynamics 102
approaches (Buongiorno, 1996; Pruyt, 2010; Sterman, 1994), and agent-based models (Axtell 103
and Andrews, 2002; Sopha et al., 2011). 104
105
The different methods partly depend on each other. CGE models, for example, are built from 106
Leontief IO models, which in turn are derived from SUTs. Moreover, many ‘hybrid models’ 107
that combine features of different methods exist. Those include hybrid LCA, mixed-unit I/O, 108
waste-I/O, combinations of LCA and CGE, extended dynamic MFA, scenario-based hybrid 109
I/O, and consequential LCA (Dandres et al., 2012; Earles and Halog, 2011; Finnveden et al., 110
2009; Hawkins et al., 2007; Heijungs and Suh, 2002; Hertwich et al., 2015; Modaresi et al., 111
2014; Nakamura and Kondo, 2002; Nakamura et al., 2008; Suh et al., 2004). 112
113
The methods differ regarding the choice of system boundary, process resolution, the layer of 114
analysis (physical or monetary), regional coverage, exogenous drivers, and the way they 115
model the interaction between human society and nature. Despite these differences, the 116
methods have one central commonality. They all describe certain aspects of the biophysical 117
structures of society (Haberl et al., 2004), which includes human-controlled in-use stocks such 118
as infrastructure, buildings, vehicles, machines and other fixed capital, consumer products, 119
but also our own bodies, and of socioeconomic metabolism, which describes the industrial 120
processes, market activities, commodity flows, and exchanges with nature to build, maintain, 121
and operate the in-use stocks (Fischer-Kowalski and Haberl, 1998). 122
123
1.3 Socioeconomic metabolism as concept: Metaphor, boundary object, or paradigm? 124
In a recent paper, Newell and Cousins (2014) ask the community to ‘reinvigorate the urban 125
metabolism metaphor’ to overcome academic isolation between different fields including 126
industrial ecology, Marxist ecologies, and urban ecology. We strongly agree with them 127
regarding the unifying role of the metabolism concept in the study of socioecological systems 128
from different angles. In a first step towards greater unification, socioeconomic metabolism 129
(henceforth SEM) could be seen as boundary object of different methods that study the 130
biophysical basis of society in different disciplines. A boundary object “is an analytic concept 131
of those scientific objects which both inhabit several intersecting social worlds [including 132
different scientific fields, S.P.] and satisfy the informational requirements of each of them” 133
(Star and Griesemer, 1989). To accommodate the ontological differences across different 134
fields and to create some common identity across fields the general notion of a boundary 135
object needs to be rather vague (Hertz and Schlüter, 2015). The currently prevailing 136
metaphorical use of the concept SEM probably meets this criterion. 137
138
We believe, however, that it is necessary to move beyond metaphorical use of the term 139
‘metabolism’, because socioeconomic metabolism is more and more often used without 140
explicit reference to biological systems, and because the application of the metabolism 141
concept as boundary object for socio-ecological systems requires a new scoping and 142
redefinition of the term to facilitate analytical rigor in the fields that study SES (Fischer-143
Kowalski, 1998; Hertz and Schlüter, 2015). 144
145
The study of the socioeconomic metabolism as part of the biophysical basis of SES is subject 146
to natural scientific principles, and hence, it follows an explicit or implicit paradigm. In the 147
third edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn (1996 [1962]) defines a 148
scientific paradigm as a group of "universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a 149
time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of practitioners”. A paradigm 150
facilitates scientific progress, and ultimately, it helps to increase the relevance of science for 151
society (Kuhn, 1996 [1962]). Does SEM qualify as ‘universally recognized scientific 152
achievement’, and hence as paradigm? That would have implications that go far beyond the 153
use of SEM as metaphor or boundary object. 154
155
156
157
1.4 Research gap, goal and scope of the paper 158
Socioeconomic metabolism (SEM) has already been described as paradigm (ConAccount, 159
1998; Fischer-Kowalski and Hüttler, 1999; Fischer-Kowalski and Weisz, 1999; Fischer-160
Kowalski, 1998), but the foundations and implications of this assertion were not clearly 161
stated. Moreover, the consequences of this assertion for the systematization of the different 162
methods were not investigated. 163
This paper tries to fill that gap; it aims to complement the work on the historic development of 164
SEM (Fischer-Kowalski and Hüttler, 1999; Fischer-Kowalski, 1998) by putting the concept 165
into a broader context. We argue that the concept of socioeconomic metabolism, which was 166
developed in material flow analysis and material flow accounting, 167
(i) is powerful and can be applied more broadly to a number of efforts that have not yet fully 168
recognized that they do research on the same subject and that could benefit from more 169
interaction. 170
(ii) can serve as paradigm for the study of the biophysical basis of human society, which has 171
further implications that have not been fully recognized yet. 172
173
In section 2 we further elaborate the notion of SEM and examine what might qualify SEM as 174
paradigm for the study of the biophysical basis of human society. We also explore the 175
relationship between SEM, the economy, and society in more detail. 176
In section 3, we show the benefits of using SEM as paradigm: We demonstrate that using 177
SEM as paradigm can help to identify commonalities between different conceptual 178
frameworks and modeling approaches, describe several direct applications of SEM, and 179
discuss the limitations of the concept. 180
181
182
2. Socioeconomic metabolism (SEM) as paradigm 183
2.1. What is socioeconomic metabolism? 184
To describe the autopoietic and complex character of society’s biophysical basis, the concept 185
‘metabolism’, which refers to “the totality of the chemical reactions and physical changes that 186
occur in living organisms” (Cammack et al., 2008) was adopted from biology by researchers 187
that were developing frameworks and methods for material and energy flow accounting 188
(Ayres and Simonis, 1994; Baccini and Brunner, 2012 [1991]; Fischer-Kowalski, 1998; 189
Wolman, 1965). The extended notion of metabolism was termed socioeconomic metabolism. 190
It is often used in different combinations and connotations, including ‘industrial metabolism’ 191
(Ayres and Simonis, 1994), ‘metabolism of the anthroposphere’ (Baccini and Brunner, 1991), 192
‘anthropogenic metabolism’ (Brunner and Rechberger, 2002), ‘social’, ‘societal’, ‘society’s’, 193
or ‘socio-economic metabolism’ (Fischer-Kowalski and Hüttler, 1999; Fischer-Kowalski and 194
Weisz, 1999; Pauliuk and Müller, 2014), and urban metabolism or metabolism of cities 195
(Kennedy et al., 2007; Newell and Cousins, 2014; Wolman, 1965). 196
The concept of SEM has found widespread appraisal, and the International Society for 197
Industrial Ecology now has a topical section entitled ‘Socio-Economic Metabolism’. It 198
inspired the development of economy-wide accounts of energy and material turnover 199
(Eurostat, 2001; Haberl, 2001; Haberl et al., 2004). Compilation of aggregated material flow 200
indicators is now part of the data collection routines at EuroStat (Eurostat, 2001), the OECD 201
(OECD, 2003), and the system of environmental-economic accounting (UN, 2012). The term 202
metabolism, however, implies broader application than mere accounting of material and 203
energy flows. It defines a research subject and perspective for a wider research field. 204
205
The notion of SEM has evolved over time and the scope of the term differs among scholars. 206
While sharing a common view on the complexity of the system studied, these definitions 207
differ in scope and level of aggregation. Some definitions of SEM refer to an aggregate 208
account of flows or processes within the anthroposphere, and the notion of society as complex 209
autopoietic system remains implicit. Examples include Fischer-Kowalski and Amann (2001): 210
“Socio-economic metabolism refers to the sum total of the material and energetic flows into, 211
within, and out of a socio-economic system.”, and Kennedy et al. (2007): “urban metabolism 212
might be defined as the sum total of the technical and socioeconomic processes that occur in 213
cities, resulting in growth, production of energy, and elimination of waste.” Alternatively, 214
Fischer-Kowalski and Haberl (1998) define SEM more widely as “the material input, 215
processing and releases of society and the corresponding energy turnover” and as ‘material 216
and energetic process within the economy and society’ (Fischer-Kowalski, 1998), thus going 217
beyond the sum total of energy and material throughput. Other authors proposed even more 218
comprehensive definitions by explicitly including stocks. Baccini and Brunner (2012 [1991]) 219
define the metabolism of the anthroposphere as ‘all physical flows and stocks of energy and 220
matter within and between the entities of […] the space in which biological and cultural 221
activities of human beings take place’. Pauliuk and Müller (2014) describe SEM as ‘the set of 222
all anthropogenic flows, stocks, and transformations of physical resources and their respective 223
dynamics assembled in a systems context.’. 224
While the rough meaning of socioeconomic metabolism is intuitively clear to many, a precise 225
delineation is necessary to bring this concept to the next level. In the following points we try 226
to clarify what objects and events are part of SEM, how its boundary can be defined, and on 227
what level of aggregation the analysis should take place. 228
1) Metabolism is commonly associated with chemical reactions and other physical 229
changes within living organisms (Cammack et al., 2008), and we argue that in a 230
generalized notion, the metabolism of a certain domain of a socioecological system 231
should comprise all events that involve the transformation and distribution of 232
biophysical objects inside that domain. Events in SES can be modelled as processes or 233
flows (Pauliuk et al., 2015a), and they are described in terms of the biophysical objects 234
which partake in them. Stocks of objects should not be seen as part of SEM, because 235
the static nature of stocks conflicts with the dynamic notion of metabolism. Moreover, 236
stocks are already described by a complementary concept as biophysical structures of 237
society (Haberl et al., 2004). 238
2) The systems approach implies the existence of a boundary that divides all biophysical 239
events into those that are part of SEM and those that are not. The general theory does 240
not specify, however, where exactly this boundary is. In practice, this specification 241
follows from conventions established by researchers that agreed to use a common 242
accounting framework. Examples for boundary choices can be found in all major 243
accounting frameworks (European Commission, 2008; Eurostat, 2001; UN, 2012). In 244
more abstract terms, Pauliuk et al. (2015a) propose to use thresholds of extrinsic 245
properties to classify objects and events into categories that are defined according to 246
the relations between the objects and human agents. An example is the use of 247
economic value to divide process output into useful output and waste. In the case of 248
SEM, we propose to use the level of control by human agents as the defining extrinsic 249
property to draw the line between SEM and the natural environment (Figure 1a). This 250
control threshold for events represents the boundary between events that experience 251
sufficiently high levels of control by human agents and are hence part of SEM, and 252
those that do not and are hence part of the natural environment. 253
3) In our opinion, the general notion of SEM should not prescribe a specific level of 254
aggregation or unit of measurement to make the concept suitable for a wide spectrum 255
of research questions and approaches. Higher levels of aggregation (like the sum total) 256
can always be obtained from more detailed studies. 257
We reflect the specifications made above in a more precise definition of SEM that we 258
propose: 259
Socioeconomic metabolism constitutes the self-reproduction and evolution of the biophysical 260
structures of human society. It comprises those biophysical transformation processes, 261
distribution processes, and flows, which are controlled by humans for their purposes. The 262
biophysical structures of society (‘in use stocks’) and socioeconomic metabolism together 263
form the biophysical basis of society. 264
The biophysical structures and socioeconomic metabolism of SES are complementary 265
concepts. The former describes the biophysical objects in SES in a systems context and the 266
latter describes the events in which these objects are involved. Both concepts are intimately 267
intertwined. Events require objects for their description, and one cannot comprehensively 268
describe SEM without including stocks such productive capital or in-use stocks. On the other 269
hand, a description of stocks without events would be static and of very limited use to SES 270
research. 271
2.2. Putting SEM into context 272
The biophysical basis of society, comprising SEM and the biophysical structures of society, is 273
closely related to other concepts and categories of analysis. Clarifying these relationships 274
helps us to understand the importance and usefulness of the metabolism concept in the debate 275
about mitigation and adaptation to global environmental change. In the following three 276
subsections, we discuss the relation between the biophysical basis of society and the 277
biophysical and social spheres of causation (Fischer-Kowalski and Weisz, 1999; Haberl et al., 278
2004; Sieferle, 1997; Spash, 2012), the relation between this basis and the geo-biosphere, and 279
its relationship with the concept ‘economy’. In Appendix A we discuss the relation between 280
the biophysical basis of society and the anthroposphere. 281
2.2.1. Socioeconomic metabolism and the biophysical and social realities 282
The events that constitute SEM are part of two distinct, but interconnected spheres, which are 283
termed biophysical and social realities (Spash, 2012), or natural/biophysical and social 284
spheres of causation (Fischer-Kowalski and Weisz, 1999; Haberl et al., 2004; Sieferle, 1997). 285
286
Figure 1: The relation between the natural environment, the biophysical structures of society, 287
socioeconomic metabolism, and the social sphere of causation. a) The biophysical basis of society, 288
comprising socioeconomic metabolism and society’s biophysical structures, as subset of the 289
biophysical reality, described as the set of object and events that experiences a sufficiently high level 290
of control by human agents. The ‘environment’ is defined relationally as the set of all objects and 291
events that are not part of this basis. b) Socioeconomic metabolism is fully encompassed by the social 292
reality. The latter expands beyond SEM as it reaches into the natural environment and also comprises 293
non-physical objects of relevance to society. Fig. 1b is a modified version of the original versions 294
given by Sieferle (1997), Fischer-Kowalski and Weisz (1999), and Haberl et al. (2004). 295
All events in SEM are of biophysical nature, and hence part of the biophysical reality. They 296
are also part of the social reality, because humans need to recognize these objects and events 297
before they can control them for their purposes (Figure 1b). 298
2.2.2. Socio-economic metabolism and the geo-biosphere 299
Socioeconomic metabolism is part of the biophysical process of the geo-biosphere, and we 300
can re-draw Fig. 1a to illustrate this relationship (Fig 2a). 301
302
Figure 2: a) Illustrative scheme of SEM as part of the biophysical process of the geo-biosphere. The 303
image of the Earth illustrates the limited size of the geo-biosphere. Colonization describes “the 304
intended and sustained transformation of natural processes, by means of organized social 305
interventions, for the purpose of improving their utility for society” (Fischer-Kowalski and Weisz, 306
1999). b) The system in Fig. 2a, embedded in the wider scheme of the biophysical and social spheres 307
of causation. 308
The process of expanding the biophysical basis of society at the expense of the natural 309
environment is described as colonization of the Earth’s ecosystem (Sieferle, 1997; Sieferle et 310
al., 2006). Colonization “refers to the intended and sustained transformation of natural 311
processes, by means of organized social interventions, for the purpose of improving their 312
utility for society” (Fischer-Kowalski and Weisz, 1999). While colonization expands the 313
‘human niche’, the level of control describes to what degree the colonized processes and 314
flows of the bio-geosphere are actually part of SEM. The distinction between colonization and 315
control therefore allows for flexible categorization of, for example, extensively used grassland 316
and regulated river systems, depending on the purpose of the respective studies. 317
The geo-biosphere is limited, and this limitation constrains SEM: As sub-system of the geo-318
biosphere, SEM inherits the limits of the former, and cannot expand indefinitely.1 This 319
limitation distinguishes SEM from a thermodynamic system, which, by definition, is too 320
small to impact the state of its surroundings. This limitation of the extent of SEM is so central 321
that we propose to amend the definition of the concept: 322
As subset of the biophysical process of the geo-biosphere, socioeconomic metabolism is 323
constrained by the limited biophysical resources of the Earth. 324
The sketch in Fig. 2a can be redrawn to show the geo-biosphere as part of social and 325
biophysical spheres of causation (Fig. 2b). The geo-biosphere is divided into a section under 326
human control, which is often called ‘anthroposphere’,2 and the remainder, the natural 327
environment. 328
329
1 For the foreseeable time, metabolically significant expansion into space is prohibited by large energy
costs.
2 We refer to appendix A for a discussion of the relation between socioeconomic metabolism and the
anthroposphere.
2.2.3. The relationship between socioeconomic metabolism and the economy. 330
Daly and Farley (2004) discuss two different ways of looking at the relationship between the 331
economy and the environment. First, one can perceive natural ecosystems as subsystem of the 332
man-made economy, a subsystem that provides us with resources and receives our waste 333
flows, whose services – if necessary – can be substituted by economic processes, and whose 334
limitations can be overcome by technology deployment (Figure 3a). To put more emphasis on 335
the importance of ecosystem services to the economy, ecological economists and many others 336
have been promoting a different perspective. They propose to consider the economy as sub-337
system of the natural environment (Figure 3b). The latter view seems to have become the 338
predominant perspective amongst researchers and accountants concerned with environmental 339
issues. Fig. 3b can now even be found in the UN System of Economic and Environmental 340
Accounts (SEEA) (figure 3.1 in UN (2012)), which provides guidelines for the accounting of 341
the physical dimension of monetary stocks and flows recorded in the system of national 342
accounts (UN, 2008). Figure 3b also appears in Scott Cato (2009) and in a similar version in 343
Rockström (2015); it illustrates that economic activity is constrained by environmental limits 344
and suggests that environmental sustainability is a precondition for economic sustainability. 345
While plausible at first glance, we see several problems connected to the system in Figure 3b. 346
1) The economy comprises non-tangible assets like software and information, and socially 347
constructed economic objects including liabilities and goodwill, which are not part of the 348
biophysical reality. In Figure 5.1 of the SEEA, for example, economic and environmental 349
assets are shown as two overlapping, but distinct sets. That seems to contradict the earlier 350
notion of the economy as subset of the environment. Daly and Farley (2004) warn that the 351
‘economy’ in their version of Figure 3b contains only the part of the economy that has a 352
physical dimension. The non-tangible and perishable part of the economy, including non-353
tangible assets and service flows, is not accurately represented in Figure 3b. 354
2) There is no notion of a social dimension in Figure 3b, which is one dimension of 355
sustainable development. 356
3) Figures 3a and 3b are often seen as irreconcilable or as arising from different worldviews, 357
although it is acknowledged that the representation of the economy in Figure 3b only 358
comprises its physical aspects (Daly and Farley, 2004). We argue that neither of the two 359
representations in Figure 3 fully acknowledges the importance of physical limits to economic 360
activity and the importance of non-physical, non-tangible objects in economic systems. 361
The representations in Figure 3a and 3b are therefore both unsatisfactory. The upper one is 362
criticized by ecological economics as disregarding the physical constraints posed by the 363
environment and the lower one is hard to accept for many economists and sociologists as it 364
only comprises the physical aspects of the economy. We see a necessity for clarifying these 365
issues to enable economists to look at non-physical parts of the economy as option to 366
reconcile economic growth with environmental sustainability. This clarification would 367
provide a theoretical justification for alternative economic concepts including the steady-state, 368
spaceman, or performance economy (Boulding, 1966; Daly, 1991; Stahel, 2006). In section 369
2.2.4, we present an integration of Figures 2b and 3b that overcomes the shortcomings of the 370
scheme in Figure 3b and that clarifies the relationship between SEM, the economy, and the 371
environment. 372
373
374
Figure 3: Two antipodal concepts of economy-environment interactions. a) The environment as 375
subset of the economy. Drawn after Figure 2.1 in Daly and Farley (2004). b) The economy as subset 376
of the environment. Drawn after Figure 2.3 from Daly and Farley (2004). This figure also appears in 377
the SEEA (UN, 2012). 378
379
2.2.4. Synthesis 380
Since all economic activities are human-controlled activities, all economic objects and events 381
must be part of the social sphere of causation. What separates an economic object or activity 382
from any social object and activity? We apply the threshold concept developed in Pauliuk et 383
al. (2015a) and propose a scarcity threshold to distinguish economic processes from other 384
social processes. With the common notion of the economy as allocation of scarce resources to 385
competing ends there are always non-scarce objects, both in the biophysical and social sphere 386
of causation, which do not need allocation by humans. This lack of scarcity can be a result of 387
abundance (oxygen) or a lack of meaningful inclusion of these objects into the economy 388
(undiscovered resources). To accommodate the relationship between SEM and the natural 389
environment, we also introduce an impact threshold to distinguish those parts of the natural 390
environment that are substantially impacted by human activities from those that remain 391
virtually unchanged. The overlap of biophysical and social spheres of causation, together with 392
three thresholds for human control, scarcity, and human impact, respectively, leads to the 393
drawing in Fig. 4. Reality is divided into seven compartments, which are further described in 394
Table 1. 395
396
Figure 4: Formalization of the sketch in Figure 2 and the introduction of the scarcity and impact 397
thresholds. The intersection of biophysical and social spheres of causation (dash-dotted ovals), 398
together with the thresholds for human control, scarcity, and human impact (dashed lines and ovals), 399
allow us to establish a meaningful relationship between different concepts. The scheme describes the 400
boundaries between the economy and the social sphere of causation, between the biophysical basis of 401
society (society’s biophysical structures and socioeconomic metabolism) and the economy, and 402
between the economy and the natural environment. The seven compartments in the scheme are 403
explained in Table 1. 404
The scheme in Fig. 4 demonstrates that the economy and the environment are not subsets of 405
each other, but that each of the two realms extends into both the biophysical and social 406
spheres of causation. Socioeconomic metabolism, however, is a subset of the biophysical 407
sphere of causation. The message conveyed by Figure 3b becomes more precise when the 408
term ‘economy’ is replaced by ‘biophysical basis of society’, which it is well in line with the 409
reasoning given in Daly and Farley (2004). Fig. 4 shows that there is a clear and important 410
distinction between the economy and society’s biophysical basis. 411
Table 1: Description of objects and events in the seven compartments in the refined scheme in Figure 412
4. 413
Com
part
ment
Name Example for objects Example for events Bio-
phys.
reality
Social
reality
Natur-
al
envi-
ron-
ment
Eco-
nomy
1 Undiscovered
natural objects, part
of biophysical but
not part of social
reality
Undiscovered natural
resources
Processes in the inner of
the Earth x x
2 Discovered nature,
part of social reality
but not part of the
economy, no
significant human
influence
Deep sea species, trees in
remote wilderness areas,
pristine waterbodies
Volcanic events, global
flows of, e.g., sodium or
chlorine, whose cycles are
hardly distorted by human
activity (Klee and
Graedel, 2004)
x x x
3 Nature that is not
part of the economy
but experiences
significant human
influence
Estuaries, mountain forests,
glaciers, controlled wolf
populations, insects, rats
Forest growth, glacier
runoff x x x
4 Nature that is part of
the economy
“natural assets or
resources”
Scarce and useful nature, not
sufficiently controlled by
humans to be part of the
SEM, depending on system
boundary choice:
Undeveloped mineral
resources, crops on the field,
managed forests
Freshwater flows,
absorption of atmospheric
nitrogen by cultivated
plants
x x x x
5 Socioeconomic
metabolism and the
biophysical
structures of society
All biophysical objects and
phenomena with a sufficient
level of control by human
agents: industry, products
in use
All production activities,
disposal processes, and
use of artifacts, that
constitute society’s
metabolism
x x x
6 Intangible economic
goods
Everything that is not
physical but part of the
economy: service flows, bank
deposits, liabilities,
copyright, skills, brands
Trade on the stock market x x
7 Intangible non-
economic objects
Democracy, family relations,
values, perception of ‘good
life’
Democratic elections,
interaction between
people
x
414
The distinction between economy and SEM leads to a clarification of the meaning of Fig 3b. 415
Another consequence of this distinction concerns the application of the laws of 416
thermodynamics to the economy: Because the economy also comprises non-tangible objects, 417
thermodynamics, which only apply to biophysical objects, do not necessarily apply to the 418
economy as a whole. This distinction may serve as a theoretical foundation for economic 419
concepts that aim at reconciling economic growth with biophysical constraints. Economic 420
growth may be decoupled from biophysical constraints if the economy expands into the non-421
physical realm (sphere 6 in Fig. 4). 422
423
2.3. SEM as paradigm 424
We now return to the question whether SEM, which comprises the study of events in society’s 425
biophysical basis in a systems context, qualifies as "universally recognized scientific 426
achievement[] that, for a time, provide[s] model problems and solutions for a community of 427
practitioners” (Kuhn, 1996 [1962]). A paradigm prescribes 428
I. what the research is about (object of research) 429
II. the type and structure of research questions asked 430
III. how the research is conducted (research methods) 431
IV. how the results are to be interpreted 432
Below we provide a list of statements that describe SEM from our perspective and tag each 433
statement with one or more of the four categories: ‘object of research’ (I), ‘type of research 434
questions’ (II), ‘research methods’ (III), and ‘interpretation’ (IV). 435
436
SEM describes an object of research. SEM comprises the processes and flows to build 437
up and maintain the bio-physical structures of society. SEM research necessarily contains 438
a description of these structures. [I] 439
The notion of SEM suggests that the study of the biophysical basis of society follows 440
both physical laws and social mechanisms/rationales. Physical laws such as the 441
conservation of mass and energy motivate the tracing of mass and energy flows in 442
society, while social rationales motivate the use of economic models as well as different 443
forms of social, cultural, and economic inquiry. [I, II, III, IV] 444
The notion of SEM recognizes the interconnection of bio-physical and social 445
realities, which is manifested in multi-layer economic-environmental accounting (UN, 446
2012), the development of integrated economic and physical frameworks to describe and 447
analyze SEM (Schmidt et al., 2012), and the debate about the difference between these 448
models, e.g., (Merciai and Heijungs, 2014; Weisz and Duchin, 2006). [II, III, IV] 449
The notion of SEM recognizes the complexity of society-nature interactions, which 450
motivates the study of supply chains with LCA or IO, emergent phenomena like 451
industrial symbiosis or complex recycling systems, or feedback mechanisms on different 452
levels. [II, III, IV] 453
The notion of SEM acknowledges that both biophysical and social reality extend 454
beyond society’s biophysical basis, which is best illustrated by the discussion on 455
boundaries in section 2.2. [I, II, IV] 456
The notion of SEM acknowledges the limitedness of the natural environment, which 457
is reflected in the amended definition of the concept provided in section 2.2.2. [II, IV] 458
The notion of SEM acknowledges the importance of conservation laws, which 459
includes mass and energy conservation for physical, and conservation of monetary 460
quantities for economic models. [III] 461
The notion of SEM acknowledges significant human control of his ecological niche, 462
and holds mankind responsible for the events within society and their consequences for 463
the natural environment. This responsibility is well reflected by the introduction of the 464
control threshold, by the current political debate, and by the different methods that study 465
humanity’s impact on the environment. [II, IV] 466
The notion of SEM implies the existence of a boundary between human society and 467
nature. The actual specification of that boundary is left to the specific accounting 468
frameworks and system definitions (cf. section 2.1). [I, II, IV] 469
The notion of SEM gives meaning to research questions and approaches that would 470
not make sense under other paradigms (Kuhn, 1996 [1962]). One example is the 471
transfer the concept of allometry (West, 1997) from biological organisms to human 472
society (Dalgaard and Strulik, 2011). Another example is the application of complex 473
network theory to regional metabolism (Yao et al., 2015) and to energy distribution 474
(Jarvis et al., 2015). [II] 475
476
These presuppositions make clear that SEM is more than just a metaphor borrowed from 477
biology. Instead, it is a modification of the metabolism concept that is applicable to the 478
biophysical basis of human society. Its definition has matured for about two decades, and 479
now, it comprises many central aspects of state-of-the-art research on society’s biophysical 480
basis and society-nature interactions. We believe therefore that SEM represents a paradigm 481
for this type of research. 482
483
3. Illustrating the use of socioeconomic metabolism (SEM) as paradigm 484
3.1. SEM as element of positive science and its relation to economic concepts and 485
industrial ecology 486
In terms of the categories identified by Binder et al. (2013), SEM is an analysis-oriented 487
paradigm that implies a bidirectional relationship between society and nature and that 488
assumes an anthropocentric perspective on the ecological system. It is a neutral or positive 489
concept, which means that its application allows us to describe and analyze the biophysical 490
basis of society independent of any normative claims regarding how this basis should evolve. 491
It allows us to clearly distinguish between questions about ‘what is and why’ from questions 492
about ‘what should be’. Making this distinction clear in all research on the biophysical basis 493
of society would allow all scholars to use and expand a common knowledge base, irrespective 494
of their motivation or intention. 495
Because of its positive nature, we argue that SEM is a suitable paradigm for studying the 496
biophysical basis of different normative economic concepts including the circular economy 497
(Yuan et al., 2006), the spaceman economy (Boulding, 1966), the steady-state economy (Daly, 498
1991), the service economy, the blue economy, the performance economy (Stahel, 2006), 499
sustainability economics (Baumgärtner and Quaas, 2010), the 3R concept, cradle to cradle 500
and bio-mimicry (McDonough and Braungart, 2002), roundput systems (Korhonen, 2001), 501
bioeconomy (Kitchen and Marsden, 2011), and industrial ecology (Frosch and Gallopoulos, 502
1989; Graedel and Allenby, 1995). 503
We illustrate this claim using the example of industrial ecology. One of the standard 504
definitions of industrial ecology, given by White (1994), has two parts: a positive, descriptive 505
part and a teleological part that describes the purpose of the field (Ehrenfeld, 2007). White 506
defines industrial ecology as “the study of the flows of materials and energy in industrial and 507
consumer activities, of the effects of these flows on the environment, and of the influences of 508
economic, political, regulatory, and social factors on the flow, use and transformation of 509
resources” (White, 1994). We argue that this part describes socioeconomic metabolism, which 510
would imply that SEM can serve as paradigm for the different methods associated with 511
industrial ecology. White continues by stating “The objective of industrial ecology is to 512
understand better how we can integrate environmental concerns into our economic activities” 513
(White, 1994). This statement is a teleological claim regarding the purpose of industrial 514
ecology research. It implies a normative application of SEM to study the transformation of the 515
bio-physical structures of human society to reconcile the desire for human development with 516
the environmental pressures generated by mankind. Current research in industrial ecology 517
covers a wide spectrum, spanning from purely positive studies for accounting, e.g., Fishman 518
et al. (2014), and foot-printing, e.g., Wiedmann et al. (2015), to prospective analysis (Pauliuk 519
and Hertwich, 2015), and policy design tools, e.g., Rajagopal (2014), where the latter two 520
usually imply normative judgments as to what scenario or policy outcome is more desirable. 521
522
Using SEM as paradigm facilitates a universal description of the biophysical basis of the 523
economy on which the different normative economic frameworks can build upon. The 524
reference to such a common description may increase the credibility of the different 525
alternative economic frameworks and it could facilitate communication between researchers 526
following different economic schools of thought. 527
528
An analogue argument applies to the methods for quantitative systems analysis of society’s 529
biophysical basis, which include MFA, LCA, IO, IAM and CGE models. Many researchers 530
recognize commonality and complementarity of these methods. We would like to contribute 531
to the development of a theoretical basis for the future integration of these methods and 532
believe adopting SEM as research paradigm is a first step. 533
534
3.2. Communicating SEM: Analogies and metaphors 535
Analogies expressed as metaphors have inspired new thinking in the science of industrial 536
systems (Davis et al., 2007; Ehrenfeld, 2004; Korhonen, 2004). Metaphorical use of SEM can 537
make the concept more easily accessible than the more abstract description as paradigm. 538
Easier intellectual access to socioeconomic metabolism may facilitate its application in 539
different research fields, and we present three possible analogies related to SEM: paradigms 540
for macro-level assessment, macro- and micronutrients of socioeconomic metabolism, and the 541
relation between homeostasis and socio-metabolic regimes. 542
3.2.1. SEM as paradigm for assessments on the macro-level 543
Architects and designers rely on engineers, who apply natural scientific principles to turn 544
ideas into functional and safe products. While the system-wide consequences of new products 545
are not addressed by the classical engineering approach, they become crucial for sustainable 546
development strategies, as these are meant to move the system as a whole to a more 547
sustainable state. Policy makers therefore rely on sustainability scientists for the development 548
of optimal macro-level strategies. As engineers rely on the paradigms of natural science to 549
develop products and other solutions that are optimal under local conditions, sustainability 550
scientists need to rely on a paradigm like SEM when assessing under what conditions a 551
proposed sustainable development strategy is viable from a systems perspective. 552
553
3.2.2. The nutrients of society’s metabolism 554
As biological organisms require different types of nutrients to sustain their metabolism, one 555
can consider bulk materials like biomass, fossil fuels, or steel as the ‘macro-nutrients of 556
society’ (Table 2), whereas critical materials (Catinat et al., 2010; Graedel et al., 2012) 557
represent the ‘micro-nutrients of SEM’. The anthropogenic stocks and flows of critical 558
elements such as indium, gallium, or rare earth metals are tiny compared to those of the bulk 559
materials steel or concrete. Nevertheless, they enable essential functionality in modern 560
technology. While individual critical materials can be substituted by others in various 561
applications, the functionalities provided by these materials as a group is critical to the 562
functioning of many modern technologies (Graedel et al., 2013). 563
Table 2: ‘Macro- and micro-nutrients’ of biological and socioeconomic metabolism. 564
Metabolism (biology) Socioeconomic metabolism
Macronutrients
Carbohydrates, protein, fat
Bulk materials
Iron ore, limestone, steel, coal, oil, biomass
Micronutrients
Trace elements, vitamins
Critical materials
Rare earth metals, indium, gold, platinum
565
3.2.3. Homeostasis and socio-metabolic regimes 566
Biological organisms maintain important metabolic parameters, such as the pH value of blood 567
or the temperature of endothermic animals, in a stable regime under changing environmental 568
conditions. This property is called homeostasis (Encyclopedia Britannica Online, 2014). One 569
could argue that socio-metabolic regimes, which describe an idealized and distinct way of 570
organizing SEM, can be seen as the analog of homeostasis in SEM. A socio-metabolic regime 571
is described by certain stable patterns of energy and resource use but also by typical societal 572
features such as economic institutions, population dynamics, and knowledge transfer 573
mechanisms (Haberl et al., 2004; Sieferle et al., 2006; Weisz et al., 2001). Two major regimes 574
were identified based on distinct socio-metabolic profiles: The hunter-gatherer and the 575
agrarian society. The metabolism of current industrial societies, because of its short duration 576
in historic terms and its apparent overuse of natural resources, should not be seen as a regime 577
by itself, but as a transition to a new, yet unknown future socio-metabolic regime (Fischer-578
Kowalski, 2011; Fischer-Kowalski et al., 2014; Krausmann et al., 2008). 579
Rockström and colleagues (2009) and Rockström (2015) propose a ‘safe operating space for 580
humanity’ consisting of a set of planetary boundaries, most of which are global boundary 581
values for SEM parameters, like emissions of reactive nitrogen, or can be translated into such, 582
like atmospheric GHG concentration levels. A future industrial socio-metabolic regime that 583
manages to stay within those planetary boundaries could be seen as an example of 584
homeostasis. 585
586
3.3. The limits of socioeconomic metabolism as paradigm and analogy 587
According to Kuhn (1996 [1962]), a paradigm drastically restricts vision, as it requires 588
researchers to focus on studying some concepts and relations and exclude others. This focus is 589
necessary for the advancement of science, but it may make us blind to see important relations 590
between man and nature. What do we miss by embarking on SEM as paradigm for studying 591
the biophysical structures of society? We briefly discuss two aspects of SEM as paradigm that 592
may provoke criticism. 593
594
3.3.1. SEM, sustainability, and the anthropocene 595
SEM is an anthropocentric concept, and so is sustainability (Haberl et al., 2004; World 596
Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). The notion of SEM implies the 597
existence of a boundary between the ‘human niche’ and the rest of the geo-biosphere, and 598
different levels of human control apply to the human niche and its complement, the natural 599
environment. Given the massive influence of human activity on most of Earth’s ecosystems 600
and the long time scales on which this influence will persist (Barnosky et al., 2012; IPCC, 601
2013; Steffen et al., 2011), one could doubt that the boundary between society and nature will 602
be of relevance in the long run and argue that it should be replaced by more flexible notions 603
like the thresholds for impact and scarcity proposed above. In the anthropocene, humanity has 604
to manage salient global bio-physical parameters, like atmospheric GHG concentrations, that 605
directly and indirectly impact the biophysical processes in most of Earth’s ecosystems. Hence, 606
the control threshold and the boundary between SEM and the natural global environment may 607
become obsolete if human control and influence on the global ecosystem continues to grow 608
and shape the global socioecological system along with the natural driving forces (Steffen et 609
al., 2011). 610
611
3.3.2. SEM-based models for sustainable development 612
Using SEM as paradigm in environmental engineering provides the rationale for applying the 613
engineering approach to manage society’s material and energy turnover. Consider, for 614
example, the use of engineering tools like MFA and LCA to assess the environmental 615
performance of countries, regions, or product systems. An important criticism of some SEM-616
based engineering models is their pursuit of efficiency improvement and incremental changes, 617
rather than exploring qualitative changes in the metabolism, such as lifestyle changes or a 618
shift of transport mode. For example, systems designed to study the relation between 619
transportation service and GHG emissions, like the one used by Modaresi et al. (2014), allow 620
for studying efficiency improvements for all individual processes and the system as a whole. 621
They are too limited, however, to explore qualitative changes, like a shift between different 622
modes of transport, reduced consumption levels due to changes in consumer lifestyle and 623
attitude, or the emergence of new industries, products, and services. SEM-based engineering 624
models alone cannot capture effects that are mostly driven by social dynamics. Combining 625
SEM-based engineering models with agent-based modeling (Axtell and Andrews, 2002) or 626
economic models that capture consumer choices and price effects, e.g., (Bouman et al., 2000; 627
de Vries et al., 2001; Kitous, 2006; Loulou et al., 2005), helps to widen the scope of the 628
engineering approach to transforming society’s metabolism. 629
Conclusion 630
This work offers some conceptual clarifications that may be of value irrespective of a possible 631
future role of socioeconomic metabolism as paradigm. It may serve as reference to 632
practitioners who wish to navigate the landscape of concepts to describe socioecological 633
systems. Still, we believe that the greatest potential of the concept SEM lies in its unifying 634
nature as boundary object and paradigm for systems approaches that study the biophysical 635
basis of society and how this basis determines natural resource use and generation of 636
environmental pressures by human society. Applying SEM as paradigm may facilitate the 637
combination and integration of existing accounting frameworks and assessment methods, as 638
well as the development of new research questions. More robust assessment and 639
comprehensive understanding of the system-wide effects of sustainable development 640
strategies may be the result. 641
642
Appendix A. Socio-economic metabolism and the anthroposphere 643
The level of control by human agents is not the only possible extrinsic property to distinguish 644
between human and natural systems. More examples are presented in Table A.1 for possible 645
threshold-based definitions of a commonly used concept, the anthroposphere (Baccini and 646
Brunner, 2012 [1991]). Table A.1 shows the difficulties that arise when one tries to specify 647
exactly what is comprised by the anthroposphere. While some extrinsic properties, like ‘man-648
made’, ‘man-owned’, and ‘impacted by human activities’, would lead to clear 649
misconceptions, as can be seen from the conflicts listed in the table, others, notably the 650
definitions based on control/colonization and the spatial definition, seem to lead to more 651
meaningful conceptualizations of the anthroposphere. 652
In absence of a consensus on which definition to choose, practitioners have the freedom to 653
choose between different extrinsic properties that lead to meaningful definitions, but their 654
choice should be made explicit| (Pauliuk et al., 2015a). Stipulating that socioeconomic 655
metabolism and ‘metabolism of the anthroposphere’ should be synonyms not only in casual 656
use, which they already are, but also in exact terms may help to establish a consistent and 657
‘light-weight’ framework of definitions. 658
Table A.1: Possible extrinsic properties for establishing a concise division between the 659
anthroposphere and the natural environment in the global socioecological system. In addition to the 660
possible definitions of the anthroposphere as collection of objects described here, the anthroposphere 661
can also be defined as compartment of space, as in Baccini and Brunner (2012 [1991]). 662
663
“The anthroposphere
comprises those
objects that are…”
Advantages Conflicts
…made by humans
(anthropogenic)
Covers all man-made
artifacts, easy to
operationalize for
macroscopic artifacts
Abandoned and discarded artifacts and
emitted substances are often regarded as
part of nature.
Role of natural objects, plants, and animals
under human control is left unclear.
…owned by humans
or human institutions
Covers all artifacts owned by
humans or human
institutions.
Definition is easy to
operationalize
Ownership rights can be established upon
objects that are beyond human reach, like
undeveloped mineral resources.
Abandoned buildings and obsolete
products may not have an owner, but may
still be considered as part of ‘culture’.
…controlled or
colonized by humans
or human institutions
Notion of colonization and
control established in the
literature
Definition is difficult to operationalize,
how is control measured and what should
be the threshold?
…significantly
impacted by human
activities
Allows to capture the part of
nature which human
activities have an impact on
in a single concept
Definition is difficult to operationalize,
how is impact measured and what should
be the threshold?
Impact goes much further than colonization
and control, and this may not be the
intention behind ‘anthroposphere’.
One can argue that there is significant
human impact on almost all ecosystems,
which would make the distinction between
biosphere and anthroposphere obsolete.
..within certain spatial
boundaries where
human activities
dominate the natural
ecosystem
Definition is easy to
operationalize: The
anthroposphere describes
“the space in which
biological and cultural
activities of human beings
take place” (Baccini and
Brunner, 2012 [1991]).
Often, natural systems and man-made
systems mix, for example, in cities,
pastures, and on fields, and detail would be
lost if ‘boxes’ would be used to separate
nature from culture.
Some human activities extend into other
spheres: air travel (atmosphere), mining
(geosphere), or space stations (space).
References 664
Axtell, R.L., Andrews, C.J., 2002. Agent-Based Modeling and Industrial Ecology. J. Ind. Ecol. 5, 10–13. 665
Ayres, R.U., Kneese, A., 1969. Production, Consumption, and Externalities. Am. Econ. Rev. 59, 282–297. 666
Ayres, R.U., Simonis, U.E., 1994. Industrial Metabolism: Restructuring for Sustainable Development. United 667 Nations University Press, Tokyo. 668
Baccini, P., Bader, H.-P., 1996. Regionaler Stoffhaushalt. Erfassung, Bewertung und Steuerung. Spektrum, 669 Heidelberg. 670
Baccini, P., Brunner, P.H., 1991. Metabolism of the Anthroposphere. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 671
Baccini, P., Brunner, P.H., 2012. Metabolism of the Anthroposphere, Second Edition. MIT Press, Cambridge, 672 Mass. 673
Barnosky, A.D., Hadly, E. a, Bascompte, J., Berlow, E.L., Brown, J.H., Fortelius, M., Getz, W.M., Harte, J., 674 Hastings, A., Marquet, P. a, Martinez, N.D., Mooers, A., Roopnarine, P., Vermeij, G., Williams, J.W., 675 Gillespie, R., Kitzes, J., Marshall, C., Matzke, N., Mindell, D.P., Revilla, E., Smith, A.B., 2012. 676 Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature 486, 52–8. 677
Baumgärtner, S., Becker, C., Frank, K., Müller, B., Quaas, M., 2008. Relating the philosophy and practice of 678 ecological economics: The role of concepts, models, and case studies in inter- and transdisciplinary 679 sustainability research. Ecol. Econ. 67, 384–393. 680
Baumgärtner, S., Quaas, M., 2010. What is sustainability economics? Ecol. Econ. 69, 445–450. 681
Binder, C.R., Hinkel, J., Bots, P.W.G., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2013. Comparison of Frameworks for Analyzing Social-682 ecological Systems. Ecol. Soc. 18, 26. 683
Boulding, K.E., 1966. The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth, in: Jarret, H. (Ed.), Environmental 684 Quality in a Growing Economy. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 685
Bouman, M., Heijungs, R., van der Voet, E., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Huppes, G., 2000. Material flows and 686 economic models: an analytical comparison of SFA, LCA and partial equilibrium models. Ecol. Econ. 32, 687 195–216. 688
Brand, F.S., Jax, K., 2007. Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: Resilience as a descriptive concept and a 689 boundary object. Ecol. Soc. 12, 23. 690
Brunner, P.H., Rechberger, H., 2002. Anthropogenic Metabolism and Environmental Legacies, in: Munn, R.E. 691 (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change. Wiley. 692
Buongiorno, J., 1996. Forest sector modeling: A synthesis of econometrics, mathematical programming, and 693 system dynamics methods. J. Forecast. 12, 329–343. 694
Burfisher, M.E., 2011. Introduction to Computable General Equilibrium Models. Cambridge University Press, 695 New York. 696
Cambridge Econometrics, 2014. E3ME Technical Manual , Version 6.0 April 2014. Cambridge, UK. 697
Cammack, R., Atwood, T., Campbell, P., Parish, H., Smith, A., Vella, F., Stirling, J., 2008. Metabolism, in: 698 Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (2 Ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 699
Catinat, M., Anciaux, P., Backman, C.-M., Bosmans, W., Buchholz, P., Ferri, A., Gernkuks, M., Gunn, A., 2010. 700 Critical raw materials for the EU - Report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials. 701 Bruxelles. 702
ConAccount, 1998. From paradigm to practice of sustainability : regional and national material flow accounting, 703 in: Bringezu, S., Fischer-Kowalski, M., R., K., Palm, V. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ConAccount Workshop 704 21-23 January, 1997, Leiden, The Netherlands. Wuppertal Institute, Wuppertal, Germany, p. 339. 705
Dalgaard, C.-J., Strulik, H., 2011. Energy distribution and economic growth. Resour. Energy Econ. 33, 782–797. 706
Daly, H.E., 1991. Steady-State Economics, Second Edi. ed. Island Press, Washington. 707
Daly, H.E., Farley, J., 2004. Ecological Economics. Principles and Application. Island Press, Washington D.C. 708
Dandres, T., Gaudreault, C., Tirado-Seco, P., Samson, R., 2012. Macroanalysis of the economic and 709 environmental impacts of a 2005–2025 European Union bioenergy policy using the GTAP model and life 710 cycle assessment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 1180–1192. 711
Davis, J., Geyer, R., Ley, J., He, J., Clift, R., Kwan, A., Sansom, M., Jackson, T., 2007. Time-dependent material 712 flow analysis of iron and steel in the UK Part 2 . Scrap generation and recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 713 51, 118–140. 714
De Vries, B.J.M., van Vuuren, D.P., den Elzen, M.G.J., Janssen, M.A., 2001. The Targets IMage Energy 715 Regional (TIMER) Model: Technical Documentation. Bilthoven, The Netherlands. 716
Deutz, P., Ioppolo, G., 2015. From Theory to Practice: Enhancing the Potential Policy Impact of Industrial 717 Ecology. Sustainability 7, 2259–2273. 718
Earles, J.M., Halog, A., 2011. Consequential life cycle assessment: a review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16, 445–719 453. 720
Ehrenfeld, J.R., 2004. Industrial ecology: a new field or only a metaphor? J. Clean. Prod. 12, 825–831. 721
Ehrenfeld, J.R., 2007. Would industrial ecology exist without Sustainability in the background? J. Ind. Ecol. 11, 722 73–84. 723
Encyclopedia Britannica Online, 2014. Homeostasis [WWW Document]. URL 724 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/270188/homeostasis (accessed 10.2.14). 725
European Commission, 2008. Eurostat Manual of Supply, Use and Input-Output Tables, 2008 edition. Eurostat, 726 Luxembourg. 727
Eurostat, 2001. Economy-wide material flow accounts and derived indicators. A methodological guide. 728 Luxembourg. 729
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D., 730 Suh, S., 2009. Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 1–21. 731
Fischer-Kowalski, M., 1998. Society’s Metabolism: The Intellectual History of Materials Flow Analysis, Part I, I 732 860- I 970. J. Ind. Ecol. 2, 61–78. 733
Fischer-Kowalski, M., 2011. Analyzing sustainability transitions as a shift between socio-metabolic regimes. 734 Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions 1, 152–159. 735
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Amann, C., 2001. Beyond IPAT and Kuznets curves: Globalization as a vital factor in 736 analysing the environmental impact of socio-economic metabolism. Popul. Environ. 23, 7–47. 737
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Haberl, H., 1998. Sustainable development : socio-economic metabolism and colonization 738 of nature. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 50, 573–587. 739
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Hüttler, W., 1999. Society’s Metabolism: The Intellectual History of Materials Flow 740 Analysis, Part II, 1970-1 998. J. Ind. Ecol. 2, 107–136. 741
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Giljum, S., Lutter, S., Mayer, A., Bringezu, S., Moriguichi, Y., Schütz, 742 H., Schandl, H., Weisz, H., 2011. Methodology and Indicators of Economy-wide Material Flow 743 Accounting. J. Ind. Ecol. 15, 855–876. 744
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Pallua, I., 2014. A sociometabolic reading of the Anthropocene: Modes of 745 subsistence, population size and human impact on Earth. Anthr. Rev. 1, 8–33. 746
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Weisz, H., 1999. Society as Hybrid between Material and Symbolic Realms: Toward a 747 Theoretical Framework of Society-Nature Interaction. Adv. Hum. Ecol. 8, 215–251. 748
Fishman, T., Schandl, H., Tanikawa, H., Walker, P., Krausmann, F., 2014. Accounting for the Material Stock of 749 Nations. J. Ind. Ecol. 18, 407–420. 750
Forrester, J.W., 1968. Principles of Systems. Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 751
Frosch, R.A., Gallopoulos, N.E., 1989. Strategies for Manufacturing: Waste from one industrial process can 752 serve as the raw materials for another, thereby reducing the impact of industry on the environment. Sci. 753 Am. 261, 144–152. 754
Georgescu-Roegen, N., 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Harvard University Press, 755 Cambridge, MA. 756
Graedel, T.E., Allenby, B.R., 1995. Industrial Ecology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 757
Graedel, T.E., Barr, R., Chandler, C., Chase, T., Choi, J., Christoffersen, L., Friedlander, E., Henly, C., Jun, C., 758 Nassar, N.T., Schechner, D., Warren, S., Yang, M.-Y., Zhu, C., 2012. Methodology of metal criticality 759 determination. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 1063–70. 760
Graedel, T.E., Harper, E.M., Nassar, N.T., Reck, B.K., 2013. On the materials basis of modern society. Proc. 761 Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013. 762
Haberl, H., 2001. The Energetic Metabolism of Societies Part I : Accounting Concepts. J. Ind. Ecol. 5, 11–33. 763
Haberl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Weisz, H., Winiwarter, V., 2004. Progress towards 764 sustainability? What the conceptual framework of material and energy flow accounting (MEFA) can offer. 765 Land use policy 21, 199–213. 766
Hawkins, T.R., Hendrickson, C., Higgins, C., Matthews, H.S., Suh, S., 2007. A mixed-unit input-output model 767 for environmental life-cycle assessment and material flow analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 1024–31. 768
Heijungs, R., Suh, S., 2002. Computational Structure of Life Cycle Assessment. Kluwer Academic Publications., 769 Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 770
Hertwich, E.G., Gibon, T., Bouman, E.A., Arvesen, A., Suh, S., Heath, G. a., Bergesen, J.D., Ramirez, A., Vega, 771 M.I., Shi, L., 2015. Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global 772 environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 6277–6282. 773
Hertz, T., Schlüter, M., 2015. The SES-Framework as boundary object to address theory orientation in social–774 ecological system research: The SES-TheOr approach. Ecol. Econ. 116, 12–24. 775
Holling, C.S., 2001. Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems 4, 776 390–405. 777
IPCC, 2013. Summary for Policymakers, in: Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., 778 Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P.M. (Eds.), Climate Change 2013: The Physical 779 Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 780 Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, USA. 781
IPCC, 2014. Summary for policymakers., in: Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, 782 M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, 783 A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R., White, L.L. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, 784 and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth 785 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press., 786 Cambridge, UK, and New York, USA., pp. 1–32. 787
ISO, 2006. ISO 14040: Environmental management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and framework. The 788 International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva, Switzerland. 789
Jarvis, A., Jarvis, S., Hewitt, N., 2015. Resource acquisition, distribution and end-use efficiencies and the growth 790 of industrial society. Earth Syst. Dyn. Discuss. 6, 133–168. 791
Jebaraj, S., Iniyan, S., 2006. A review of energy models. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 10, 281–311. 792
Kennedy, C., Cuddihy, J., Engel-Yan, J., Univ Toronto, D.C.E.T.O.N.M.S.A.C., 2007. The changing metabolism 793 of cities. J. Ind. Ecol. 11, 43–59. 794
Kitchen, L., Marsden, T., 2011. Constructing sustainable communities: a theoretical exploration of the bio-795 economy and eco-economy paradigms. Local Environ. 16, 753–769. 796
Kitous, A., 2006. POLES Model: Prospective Outlook on Long-term Energy Systems. Grenoble, France. 797
Klee, R.J., Graedel, T.E., 2004. ELEMENTAL CYCLES: A Status Report on Human or Natural Dominance. 798 Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 29, 69–107. 799
Korhonen, J., 2001. Four ecosystem principles for an industrial ecosystem. J. Clean. Prod. 9, 253–259. 800
Korhonen, J., 2004. Theory of industrial ecology. Prog. Ind. Ecol. 1, 61–88. 801
Krausmann, F., Fischer-Kowalski, M., 2013. Global Socio-metabolic Transitions, in: Singh, S.J., Haberl, H., 802 Chertow, M., Mirtl, M., Schmid, M. (Eds.), Long Term Socio-Ecological Research. Springer, Netherlands, 803 Dordrecht, NL, pp. 339–365. 804
Krausmann, F., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Schandl, H., Eisenmenger, N., 2008. The Global Sociometabolic 805 Transition. J. Ind. Ecol. 12, 637–656. 806
Kuhn, T.S., 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Third edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 807 IL. 808
Loulou, R., Remne, U., Kanudia, A., Lehtila, A., Goldstein, G., 2005. Documentation for the TIMES Model. 809 Paris, France. 810
Maturana, H., Varela, F., 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realization of the Living. D.Reidel Publishing 811 Co., Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 812
McDonough, W., Braungart, M., 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. North Point 813 Press, New York. 814
Meerow, S., Newell, J.P., 2015. Resilience and Complexity: A Bibliometric Review and Prospects for Industrial 815 Ecology. J. Ind. Ecol. 00, n/a–n/a. 816
Merciai, S., Heijungs, R., 2014. Balance issues in monetary input–output tables. Ecol. Econ. 102, 69–74. 817
Miller, R.E., Blair, P.D., 2009. Input-Output Analysis Foundations and Extensions. Cambridge University Press, 818 New York. 819
Modaresi, R., Pauliuk, S., Løvik, A.N., Müller, D.B., 2014. Global carbon benefits of material substitution in 820 passenger cars until 2050 and the impact on the steel and aluminum industries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 821 10776–10784. 822
Nakamura, S., Kondo, Y., 2002. Input-Output Analysis of Waste Management. J. Ind. Ecol. 6, 39–63. 823
Nakamura, S., Murakami, S., Nakajima, K., Nagasaka, T., 2008. Hybrid input-output approach to metal 824 production and its application to the introduction of lead-free solders. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 3843–8. 825
Newell, J.P., Cousins, J.J., 2014. The boundaries of urban metabolism: Towards a political-industrial ecology. 826 Prog. Hum. Geogr. 827
OECD, 2003. OECD Environmental Indicators: Development, Measurement, and Use. Paris, France. 828
Ostrom, E., 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 15181–829 7. 830
Ostrom, E., 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325, 831 419–22. 832
Pauliuk, S., Hertwich, E.G., 2015. Prospective models of society’s future metabolism - What industrial ecology 833 has to contribute, in: Clift, R., Duckmann, A. (Eds.), Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology. Springer, 834 Netherlands. In press., Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 835
Pauliuk, S., Majeau-Bettez, G., Hertwich, E.G., Müller, D.B., 2015a. Toward a Practical Ontology for 836 Socioeconomic Metabolism. J. Ind. Ecol. Forthcoming. 837
Pauliuk, S., Majeau-Bettez, G., Müller, D.B., 2015b. A General System Structure and Accounting Framework 838 for Socioeconomic Metabolism. J. Ind. Ecol. DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12306. 839
Pauliuk, S., Müller, D.B., 2014. The role of in-use stocks in the social metabolism and in climate change 840 mitigation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 24, 132–142. 841
Pfenninger, S., Hawkes, A., Keirstead, J., 2014. Energy systems modeling for twenty-first century energy 842 challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 33, 74–86. 843
Pruyt, E., 2010. Scarcity of Minerals and Metals : A Generic Exploratory System Dynamics Model, in: 844 Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Seoul. 845
Rajagopal, D., 2014. Consequential Life Cycle Assessment of Policy Vulnerability to Price Effects. J. Ind. Ecol. 846 18, 164–175. 847
Rammel, C., Stagl, S., Wilfing, H., 2007. Managing complex adaptive systems — A co-evolutionary perspective 848 on natural resource management. Ecol. Econ. 63, 9–21. 849
Richardson, G.P., 2013. System dynamics, Encyclopedia of operations research and management science. John 850 Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ. 851
Rockström, J., 2015. Bounding the Planetary Future : Why We Need a Great Transition. Boston, MA. 852
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, S., Persson, Å., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–853 475. 854
Schmidt, J., Merciai, S., Delahaye, R., Vuik, J., Heijungs, R., de Koning, A., Sahoo, A., 2012. EU-CREEA 855 Project. Deliverable no. 4.1. Recommendation of terminology , classification , framework of waste 856 accounts and MFA , and data collection guideline. Aalborg, Denmark. 857
Scholz, R.W., Binder, C.R., 2011. Environmental literacy in science and society: from knowledge to decisions. 858 Cambridge University Press., Cambridge. 859
Scott Cato, M., 2009. Green Economics. Earthscan, London. 860
Sieferle, R.P., 1997. Kulturelle Evolution des Gesellschaft-Natur-Verhältnisses [Cultural Evolution of Society-861 Nature Relations], in: Fischer-Kowalski, M. (Ed.), Gesellschaftlicher Stoffwechsel Und Kolonisierung von 862 Natur. Ein Versuch in Sozialer Ökologie. Gordon and Breach Fakultas, Amsterdam, pp. 37–56. 863
Sieferle, R.P., Krausmann, F., Schandl, H., Winiwarter, V., 2006. Das Ende der Fläche. Böhlau & Cie., Cologne, 864 Germany. 865
Sopha, B.M., Klöckner, C.A., Hertwich, E.G., 2011. Exploring policy options for a transition to sustainable 866 heating system diffusion using an agent-based simulation. Energy Policy 39, 2722–2729. 867
Spash, C.L., 2012. New foundations for ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 77, 36–47. 868
Stahel, W., 2006. The Performance Economy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. 869
Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R., 1989. Institutional Ecology, `Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and 870 Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19, 387–420. 871
Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P., McNeill, J., 2011. The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical 872 perspectives. Philos. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 369, 842–67. 873
Sterman, J.D., 1994. Learning in and about complex systems. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 10, 291–330. 874
Suh, S., Lenzen, M., Treloar, G.J., Hondo, H., Horvath, A., Huppes, G., Jolliet, O., Klann, U., Krewitt, W., 875 Moriguichi, Y., Munksgaard, J., Norris, G., 2004. System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories 876 using hybrid approaches. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38, 657–664. 877
Suh, S., Weidema, B.P., Schmidt, J.H., Heijungs, R., 2010. Generalized Make and Use Framework for 878 Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 14, 335–353. 879
UN, 2008. System of National Accounts 2008. New York. 880
UN, 2012. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012, Central Framework. United Nations, New 881 Haven, CT. 882
UNFCCC, 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 2: Objectives. Geneva, 883 Switzerland. 884
Von Bertalanffy, L., 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. George Braziller, 885 New York. 886
Weisz, H., Duchin, F., 2006. Physical and monetary input–output analysis: What makes the difference? Ecol. 887 Econ. 57, 534–541. 888
Weisz, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Grünbühel, C.M., Haberl, H., Krausmann, F., Winiwarter, V., 2001. Global 889 Environmental Change and Historical Transitions. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 14, 117–142. 890
West, G.B., 1997. A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology. Science (80-. ). 276, 891 122–126. 892
White, R.M., 1994. Preface., in: Allenby, B.R., Richards, D.J. (Eds.), The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems. 893 National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 894
Wiedmann, T.O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D.D., Suh, S., West, J., Kanemoto, K., 2015. The material 895 footprint of nations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112, 6271–6276. 896
Wiedmann, T.O., Wilting, H.C., Lenzen, M., Lutter, S., Palm, V., 2011. Quo Vadis MRIO? Methodological, 897 data and institutional requirements for multi-region input–output analysis. Ecol. Econ. 70, 1937–1945. 898
Wolman, A., 1965. The Metabolism of Cities. Sci. Am. 213, 178–193. 899
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. UN, Oxford. 900
Yao, L., Liu, J., Wang, R., Yin, K., Han, B., 2015. A qualitative network model for understanding regional 901 metabolism in the context of Social–Economic–Natural Complex Ecosystem theory. Ecol. Inform. 26, 29–902 34. 903
Yuan, Z., Bi, J., Moriguichi, Y., 2006. The Circular Economy: A New Development Strategy in China. J. Ind. 904 Ecol. 10, 4–8. 905
906