integrated perspective, as represented by social-ecological systems (Virapongse
et al. 2016; cf. Vasseur et al. 2017), as well as recognising cross-scalar interactions
and thresholds. Accordingly, there is also the need to recognise the sociobiophysical
context. These ambitions will form part of the proposed research by employing an
integrated perspective that is outlined in the second and, particularly, third components of the research area of concentration (e.g., systems theory, sustainability) and
by deploying the Ecological Footprint as a cross-scalar sustainability metric (e.g.,
Wackernagel et al. 1999).
The use of a sustainability assessment tool as the Ecological Footprint can benefit
the determination of ecological deficit, for instance, which could impact ecosystems
as well as energy and food security at the national level and, thereby, also influence
human well-being (Sumaila et al. 2015). Ecological overshoot is occurring and
affecting planetary health (cf. Čuček et al. 2015), indicating that ecological capital
stocks are being depleted and that waste is accumulating (Borucke et al. 2013). This
affects the planet’s regenerative capacity as well as its ability to absorb wastes
(Wackernagel et al. 2002). Authors, such as Kitzes et al. (2008), have proposed
that this challenge be approached through resource management, such as of food and
energy consumption, and spurred ecosystem production to augment the pool of
natural capital.
Authors advocating a full-world model (e.g., Daly 2008) have already stressed
the necessity of containing human economy (industry) and population. This includes
stocks and flows of raw material inputs and waste sinks processed within the
economic sphere (or ‘ecosphere’). Such an ecological economic system operating
in steady-state equilibrium would still encourage qualitative development, though
not quantitative growth. In fact, authors are espousing ‘strategic sustainable development’ from a systems approach that endorses social-ecological sustainability
within the boundaries or limits of the ecosphere (Robèrt et al. 2002).
Material flow accounting (e.g., material Footprint), for instance, considers the
domestic extraction of natural resources as well as imports minus exports (Giljum
et al. 2006). According to these authors, material flow accounting integrates financial
resources and physical information within an accounting framework that can be used
to inform policy. As a methodological approach, for instance, material flow accounting can also be deployed as an assessment tool for ecoefficiency policies. It draws on
Daly’s full-world model by setting the economy as a subsystem embedded within the
environment (e.g. Costanza et al. 2014; also espoused by others from a socioeconomic perspective of the ‘socioeconomic metabolism’, e.g. Haberl et al. 2006, 2009,
2017). It relies on inputs of natural material and energy flow (asserted by Mancini
et al. 2017 as natural capital stock and flows), depositing its wastes back into the
natural system.
Such a metabolism approach recognises the organism as a system (FischerKowalski and Hüttler 1998; Fischer-Kowalski and Haberl 2015) that is capable of
undergoing change through sociometabolic transitions as part of sustainability
transitions (e.g., Fischer-Kowalski 2011; Markard et al. 2012). This includes
macro (landscape) transformations occurring across timescales of decades to centuries, as in the Viennese understanding of social-ecological transitions according to
4
1 Introduction
et al. 2016; cf. Vasseur et al. 2017), as well as recognising cross-scalar interactions
and thresholds. Accordingly, there is also the need to recognise the sociobiophysical
context. These ambitions will form part of the proposed research by employing an
integrated perspective that is outlined in the second and, particularly, third components of the research area of concentration (e.g., systems theory, sustainability) and
by deploying the Ecological Footprint as a cross-scalar sustainability metric (e.g.,
Wackernagel et al. 1999).
The use of a sustainability assessment tool as the Ecological Footprint can benefit
the determination of ecological deficit, for instance, which could impact ecosystems
as well as energy and food security at the national level and, thereby, also influence
human well-being (Sumaila et al. 2015). Ecological overshoot is occurring and
affecting planetary health (cf. Čuček et al. 2015), indicating that ecological capital
stocks are being depleted and that waste is accumulating (Borucke et al. 2013). This
affects the planet’s regenerative capacity as well as its ability to absorb wastes
(Wackernagel et al. 2002). Authors, such as Kitzes et al. (2008), have proposed
that this challenge be approached through resource management, such as of food and
energy consumption, and spurred ecosystem production to augment the pool of
natural capital.
Authors advocating a full-world model (e.g., Daly 2008) have already stressed
the necessity of containing human economy (industry) and population. This includes
stocks and flows of raw material inputs and waste sinks processed within the
economic sphere (or ‘ecosphere’). Such an ecological economic system operating
in steady-state equilibrium would still encourage qualitative development, though
not quantitative growth. In fact, authors are espousing ‘strategic sustainable development’ from a systems approach that endorses social-ecological sustainability
within the boundaries or limits of the ecosphere (Robèrt et al. 2002).
Material flow accounting (e.g., material Footprint), for instance, considers the
domestic extraction of natural resources as well as imports minus exports (Giljum
et al. 2006). According to these authors, material flow accounting integrates financial
resources and physical information within an accounting framework that can be used
to inform policy. As a methodological approach, for instance, material flow accounting can also be deployed as an assessment tool for ecoefficiency policies. It draws on
Daly’s full-world model by setting the economy as a subsystem embedded within the
environment (e.g. Costanza et al. 2014; also espoused by others from a socioeconomic perspective of the ‘socioeconomic metabolism’, e.g. Haberl et al. 2006, 2009,
2017). It relies on inputs of natural material and energy flow (asserted by Mancini
et al. 2017 as natural capital stock and flows), depositing its wastes back into the
natural system.
Such a metabolism approach recognises the organism as a system (FischerKowalski and Hüttler 1998; Fischer-Kowalski and Haberl 2015) that is capable of
undergoing change through sociometabolic transitions as part of sustainability
transitions (e.g., Fischer-Kowalski 2011; Markard et al. 2012). This includes
macro (landscape) transformations occurring across timescales of decades to centuries, as in the Viennese understanding of social-ecological transitions according to
4
1 Introduction