2.4 Integrated Sustainability
The integrated human-nature interactions captured by the methodology allows for a
social-ecological systems approach that combines ecological and economic sustainability (Common and Perrings 1992). Trade is an example of how the latter (economics) is considered in the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting.
Systems thinking is relevant here, as it concerns a holistic approach to both simple
and more complex relationships between different subsystems (Ostrom 2009),
including the work by Daly (e.g., 2008) who considered natural resources to be a
subsystem supporting the economic sector (another subsystem) in the ecosphere. It is
integrative, furthermore, as it is relevant to all three components of environment and
socioeconomics. For example, Virapongse et al. (2016) relayed the potential of
social-ecological systems integrated between the natural and social sciences, as for
example to address management issues through applied transdisciplinarity and the
concept of social-ecological resilience (cf. Adger et al. 2005; Max-Neef 2005).
Another systems framework by Fischer et al. (2015) shows social-ecological systems across scales (landscape, regional, and global) in addition to temporal dynamics, as part of a multifaceted ecosystem approach (cf. Allen et al. 1993).
There are various applications of sustainability, as for instance as environmental
sustainability that focuses on the use of natural resources (Lozano 2008), allowing
for interdisciplinary engagement with the development of the concept as it emerges.
An integrated approach is preferred (e.g., for resilient dynamic, adaptive complex
systems, cf. Fiksel 2006; Folke 2006). Although defining it can be challenging,
according to Costanza and Patten (1995), the general notion of sustainability recognises that ‘a sustainable system is one which survives and persists’. The context of
course is important, as are the spatial-temporal considerations that should accompany any definition of sustainability (Brown et al. 1987).
Like sustainability, systems thinking embraces an interdisciplinary perspective
from an integrated sustainability framework for the environmental and socioeconomic dimensions of human consumption impacting the Ecological Footprint.
Midgley (2000), for instance, developed a systemic intervention model that incorporates judgement, critique, and action. The latter component is especially interesting because of its emphasis on ‘action for improvement’ (p 132). This can benefit
from a holistic approach, such as that of social-ecological systems operating within
overlapped natural and cultural spheres of causation, encompassing biophysical
actualities (of the material world) that are socially relevant (e.g., Vasseur et al.
2017). The association between parts emphasises relationships in the systems perspective and is, thereby, considered to be part of systems science as well as an
‘organismic approach’ (Hammond 2003), with the living organism denoting an open
system (von Bertalanffy 1950). This conveys the notion of a ‘layered structure’
(Checkland 1999), but also different scales of operation within a system – as with
subsystems (Ostrom 2009), conveying the organized nature of the whole based on
relationships between its parts.
2.4 Integrated Sustainability
37
The integrated human-nature interactions captured by the methodology allows for a
social-ecological systems approach that combines ecological and economic sustainability (Common and Perrings 1992). Trade is an example of how the latter (economics) is considered in the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting.
Systems thinking is relevant here, as it concerns a holistic approach to both simple
and more complex relationships between different subsystems (Ostrom 2009),
including the work by Daly (e.g., 2008) who considered natural resources to be a
subsystem supporting the economic sector (another subsystem) in the ecosphere. It is
integrative, furthermore, as it is relevant to all three components of environment and
socioeconomics. For example, Virapongse et al. (2016) relayed the potential of
social-ecological systems integrated between the natural and social sciences, as for
example to address management issues through applied transdisciplinarity and the
concept of social-ecological resilience (cf. Adger et al. 2005; Max-Neef 2005).
Another systems framework by Fischer et al. (2015) shows social-ecological systems across scales (landscape, regional, and global) in addition to temporal dynamics, as part of a multifaceted ecosystem approach (cf. Allen et al. 1993).
There are various applications of sustainability, as for instance as environmental
sustainability that focuses on the use of natural resources (Lozano 2008), allowing
for interdisciplinary engagement with the development of the concept as it emerges.
An integrated approach is preferred (e.g., for resilient dynamic, adaptive complex
systems, cf. Fiksel 2006; Folke 2006). Although defining it can be challenging,
according to Costanza and Patten (1995), the general notion of sustainability recognises that ‘a sustainable system is one which survives and persists’. The context of
course is important, as are the spatial-temporal considerations that should accompany any definition of sustainability (Brown et al. 1987).
Like sustainability, systems thinking embraces an interdisciplinary perspective
from an integrated sustainability framework for the environmental and socioeconomic dimensions of human consumption impacting the Ecological Footprint.
Midgley (2000), for instance, developed a systemic intervention model that incorporates judgement, critique, and action. The latter component is especially interesting because of its emphasis on ‘action for improvement’ (p 132). This can benefit
from a holistic approach, such as that of social-ecological systems operating within
overlapped natural and cultural spheres of causation, encompassing biophysical
actualities (of the material world) that are socially relevant (e.g., Vasseur et al.
2017). The association between parts emphasises relationships in the systems perspective and is, thereby, considered to be part of systems science as well as an
‘organismic approach’ (Hammond 2003), with the living organism denoting an open
system (von Bertalanffy 1950). This conveys the notion of a ‘layered structure’
(Checkland 1999), but also different scales of operation within a system – as with
subsystems (Ostrom 2009), conveying the organized nature of the whole based on
relationships between its parts.
2.4 Integrated Sustainability
37