[MUSIC]

Hi, welcome back to the course.

And then we start the last lesson about the general framework of analysis of

the metabolic pattern of Social-Ecological Systems.

In the first two lessons,

we saw the importance of addressing the fund human activity,

and the importance of addressing the fund of land use.

In this session, we are trying to look at a general framework,

how to put together different concepts of the metabolic pattern.

In particular here, we are looking three concepts that can be associated

with the sustainability of social-ecological system.

A concept of feasibilities, the metabolic pattern must be compatible

with processes that are outside human control.

Then viability,

the metabolic pattern has to be compatible with processes under human control.

And third, desirability.

The metabolic pattern has to generate conditions that are compatible with

normative values and the institution running the social-ecological systems.

So we can go back in a moments to the predicament of the holon.

You remember the holon, is the coupling of function and structure types.

And this implies using

the metaphor of Janus, the Roman god,

that was looking inside and outside at the same time.

This metaphor has been still proposed by Koestler in

relation to the concept of holon.

And so we could say that when we are looking at the flows inside the system,

you see different things when you are looking flows

this kind of interface of the system with the context.

We already have several examples,

so we can move in quickly through at these examples.

If you're looking at the energy carriers used by a society,

you will see the fuels are 59%, and electricity 18%.

And if you are looking at primary energy sources,

how much of the energy is used to produce electricity,

this 18% becomes 36%.

So we have a bifurcation on the assessment of how much energy goes

into electricity exactly because we cannot use energy.

If you're talking about energy carrier, 18% of the energy carriers, megajoule

goes in the equivalent of kilowatt hour megajoule there to send unit.

18% coals is used, or the energy carrier in a form of electricity,

while if you're talking about a gross energy requirement, and for instance,

measuring [INAUDIBLE] of oil equivalent, is 36% of electricity.

We saw also this type of example,

a few time that the sum number can be expressed in carbon,

and protein, and fat to look for dietary requirement.

All can be expressed in kilos of vegetable and oil to look an agricultural product.

And again, you are at the inside view, and

the outside view required different types of metrics.

So why it is important why this inside?

Because we can have better informed choice of what type of quantitative

assessment we need to make some inference about what we want to do?

Again, this is an example we already saw a few times.

If we want to know what is going into the diet, we want to or how much land

do we need for producing agriculture, we have to use different numbers.

The amount of kilos going to the diet for

the desirability check is here.

The amount of kilos required to be produced by

the agriculture is in here to look the feasibility check.

These will, what you are required to do the viability check.

How many kilos you have to handle inside with your technology and

in your economic process in order to be capable of delivering this one.

So basically, you will see that you have numbers referring to the inside view.

They can be used for desirability and viability check, and

there are number referring to the outside view.

They are needed for the facility check.

Again, different type of numbers, different type

of level of analysis of different types of category.

This could be a number, 5.9 for

the household in general, then you could have a number for

urban, and then you could have a number for men.

So you can really assess your number as soon as you want.

So what happened?

When you're talking about viability, we are looking at the view from inside,

so we are looking how the black box is operating.

When we are looking at this,

we are assuming that it is possible to have the time and resources.

And we are assuming that it is possible to get rid of the waste.

So when I talk about how much electricity is used in a system to refrigerate or

to do other things, you are assuming that it's possible to do this electricity.

And that the environmental impact of the user or

the production of electricity is not a problem.

So when we are looking at viability,

we're looking only at the compatibility with internal constraints/.

and we're dealing with processes that are under human control.

So in the inside view are the structural elements,

meaning because they are expressing function.

So these structural elements must be available,

what is called in jargon, initiating conditions,

to make possible for the system to operate.

On the contrary, when we do an analysis of feasibility,

we are looking at what is coming from the outside and what is getting outside.

So in this case we're checking where or not,

We have enough ecological fund or stocks to deplete?

That's in the case of fossil energy,

to operate the energy system, the food system, the water system.

Those they are generating carriers for the society.

And then we are also looking at well or not there is enough,

as of ecological fund for absorbing the fund, or

how much can we keep a filling stocks on the west side?

So, the feasibility is about compatibility with external constraints.

And it has to do with the interface with processes, they are outside human control.

So visibility is about the black box interacting with its context.

And then the functions that are referring to these

interaction can only be observed when looking at the outside view.

So the black box can express the function,

only because there are favorable boundary conditions.

And so when we are looking at the feasibility,

we are looking at the external constraints of the system.

So there is a an element defining the sustainability of a situation,

ss the desirability, whether or not we are happy, what we are doing then.

These really add a new dimension to the analysis, because desirability

is expressly related to the fact that the human system a reflexive system.

So we can decide on our on whether we like or not what we are getting.

So of course this is a case in which if you are asking cow or

a chicken about what is the most desirable type of meat to eat,

you will have two different reply.

So we are talking about desirability.

We are talking about values, taboo, cultural identity, pattern dependence,

what happen in the particular society that led to a particular definition,

or is desirable or not?

So desirability has to do, as well, with compatibility social

institution that that determined by normative values.

So this is referred to processes under human control, but

it implied to define which humans count in determining the judgement

of the desirability or not, because this is not something

that can be defined in qualitative terms by using models.

So desirability has to do with the identity of the metabolic system.

And the metabolic system are continuously readjusting the definition of the WHY.

And therefore, the identity, that what function have to known,

which type of structural element is something that is evolving in time.

Because of reflexivity, the decision about what is

the identity of the society a different level,

the individual humans, what we believe we are.

The definition of household community and so on,

imply that the definition of desirability is always negotiated.

How to get a satisficing HOW for a given why.

And then this is what this political process is about.

In conclusion, we can say that you could have a society with food, energy,

matter, and water getting into eat.

And this result in emission, and then while we are looking at this,

we are just looking at the compatibility of the society with boundary conditions,

and then inside you have a lot of process getting on.

The same way we can say a process outside human control,

Energy Grad and Water Supply, Nutrient Supply, Soil.

And then these crosses are needed to reproduce the different sector of society,

the primary sector, service sector, the secondary sector, final consumption.

And of course if this is the condition of feasibility,

the ability of energy flows entering into the system, and

this flows to the ratio of this cart, this flows.

Then you have internally a sector relation which

the agricultural sector is giving food to everybody that

meaning of manufacturing is giving technology to everybody.

Human systems are giving work and

human control to all the others and so on.

In conclusion, There are 3 non equivalent factors to be considered when checking

the sustainability of the metabolic pattern of a social ecological system.

One is about the compatibility with processes outside human control,

that is what are the External Constraints in terms of ecological compatibility and

availability of natural resources?

Second is, compatibility to process under human control viability

that is what are the internal constraints technical and

biophysical, economic, financial and legal, because we have an additional

Set of constraints in societies due to the internal regulation of the system.

And then you have a third factor to be considered.

Desirability, that is the compatibility with institutions, norms, and aspirations.

So this has his has to do with the cultural identity,

still is an internal constraints and external constraints, at least,

cannot be defined by using models and a question.

It has to do with the negotiation of the identity, and

the political process taking place in the society.

A general framework of analysis of the metabolic pattern of Social-Ecological Systems

Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems: the Nexus between Water, Energy and Food

Meet the Instructors