2015; Steffen et al. 2015; Galli et al. 2016), or thresholds that restrain consumption.
This provides the basis for the Ecological Footprint (e.g., as mentioned by
Wackernagel and Rees 1996). For this reason, it is critical to understand the stocks
and flows (Mancini et al. 2017) available for production that are used up in
consumption and that generate wastes.
Systems theory conveys the interconnectedness of people to nature and the
impacts of human-environment interactions. It recognises the relevance of scale in
the operation of systems, including stocks (resources converted to goods or products) and flows (services), as recently acknowledged by the Global Footprint
Network (e.g., Mancini et al. 2017). The research by Haberl et al. (2004) on the
MEFA framework presents an exemplary (holistic) framework, that can be applied
to address socioenvironmental (or ‘sociobiophysical’) systems, encompassing material and energy flows as well as economic growth and social well-being. It also
denotes an integrated approach, such as found in social-ecological systems, that are
relevant to this research. Systems theory also presents the possibility of knowledgeto-action and systemic intervention based on the interconnectedness of components
within systems (cf. Midgley 2000).
The research focuses on a balanced approach within a sustainability framework
that calls for environmental and socioeconomic components. This means that both
the environment (as indicated by the land-based sustainability indicator represented
by the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting) and society – encompassing
both economics as well as society at large – are both important factors to consider in
integrated sustainability.
Therefore, the theoretical framework is based on the (three) components
pertaining to the area of concentration entailed in this research. The components are:
1. sustainability metrics, as part of sustainability accounting, used to convey
environmental performance through the balance of the Ecological Footprint and
biocapacity;
2. systems theory, conveying the Earth as a closed system and, therefore, subject to
a full-world model; and
3. sustainability as an integrated framework guiding social-ecological aspects of
the research.
First, as a sustainability metric, the Ecological Footprint has been defined as an
environmental composite indicator (cf. Strezov et al. 2017) that weighs human
consumption (demand) against the average amount of land (global hectares or gha)
necessary each year for production (supply) and to assimilate the generated waste
(e.g., Wackernagel and Rees 1996). Highly developed (high-income) countries, for
instance, are highly consumptive and, thereby, possess a large Ecological Footprint
and demonstrate weak sustainability (cf. Wackernagel et al. 2006). This was encapsulated more recently by Lin et al. (2018), who conveyed a steadily increasing per
person world Ecological Footprint at the expense of gradually declining world
biocapacity (see their Figure 1, p 64).
Norström et al. (2014) noted three ways to enhance the likelihood of achieving
the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, among them adopting an
1.2 Theoretical Framework
3
This provides the basis for the Ecological Footprint (e.g., as mentioned by
Wackernagel and Rees 1996). For this reason, it is critical to understand the stocks
and flows (Mancini et al. 2017) available for production that are used up in
consumption and that generate wastes.
Systems theory conveys the interconnectedness of people to nature and the
impacts of human-environment interactions. It recognises the relevance of scale in
the operation of systems, including stocks (resources converted to goods or products) and flows (services), as recently acknowledged by the Global Footprint
Network (e.g., Mancini et al. 2017). The research by Haberl et al. (2004) on the
MEFA framework presents an exemplary (holistic) framework, that can be applied
to address socioenvironmental (or ‘sociobiophysical’) systems, encompassing material and energy flows as well as economic growth and social well-being. It also
denotes an integrated approach, such as found in social-ecological systems, that are
relevant to this research. Systems theory also presents the possibility of knowledgeto-action and systemic intervention based on the interconnectedness of components
within systems (cf. Midgley 2000).
The research focuses on a balanced approach within a sustainability framework
that calls for environmental and socioeconomic components. This means that both
the environment (as indicated by the land-based sustainability indicator represented
by the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting) and society – encompassing
both economics as well as society at large – are both important factors to consider in
integrated sustainability.
Therefore, the theoretical framework is based on the (three) components
pertaining to the area of concentration entailed in this research. The components are:
1. sustainability metrics, as part of sustainability accounting, used to convey
environmental performance through the balance of the Ecological Footprint and
biocapacity;
2. systems theory, conveying the Earth as a closed system and, therefore, subject to
a full-world model; and
3. sustainability as an integrated framework guiding social-ecological aspects of
the research.
First, as a sustainability metric, the Ecological Footprint has been defined as an
environmental composite indicator (cf. Strezov et al. 2017) that weighs human
consumption (demand) against the average amount of land (global hectares or gha)
necessary each year for production (supply) and to assimilate the generated waste
(e.g., Wackernagel and Rees 1996). Highly developed (high-income) countries, for
instance, are highly consumptive and, thereby, possess a large Ecological Footprint
and demonstrate weak sustainability (cf. Wackernagel et al. 2006). This was encapsulated more recently by Lin et al. (2018), who conveyed a steadily increasing per
person world Ecological Footprint at the expense of gradually declining world
biocapacity (see their Figure 1, p 64).
Norström et al. (2014) noted three ways to enhance the likelihood of achieving
the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, among them adopting an
1.2 Theoretical Framework
3