24 June 2015
Macro-socio-ecology-outline

1 ABSTRACT

Increasing human pressure on the planet from population, extractive and consumptive activity leads to resource scarcity and risks of crossing so-called planetary boundaries putting the human specis, other species and the entire earth system at risk. Further, with increasing demand of both continuing economic and social development along with a good and healthy environment and resources for the future - the need for a macroscopic view on how human resource use relates to the state of environment, as well as social and economic outcomes is needed.

The socio-ecological approach considers human activities as embedded and interacting with the biosphere. Socio-ecological systems have historically been considered when humans interact with the environment in extractive activities, often in marine or forest ecosystems.

At the core of the socio-ecological systems approach are questions about the dynamics of how governance systems affects the way humans interact with the environment and what they get out of their interaction with the environment.

Socio-ecological approaches, however, have a history of having been applied largely to local dynamics and to simple systems that can be analyzed analytically. As such, the socio-ecological approach has not delivered a guiding framework for how society can co-evolve in the long-term from the global to the national and regional scale.

In parrallel, global, regional or national frameworks for looking at socio-ecological dynamics have been developed. However, they have rarely been phrased explicitly as such.

Here we provide an overall framework for what can be considered a macro-socio-ecology. We tie together classic socio-ecological research with recent large scale approaches of similar character. We outline main research questions for macro-socio-ecology, its main methodological toolbox, and its policy and governance relevance.

National

2 THE NEED

• Success of socio-ecology
• A strong micro-level foundation
• Recent foundational concepts
• Planetary boundaries
• Social foundation
• Doughnut economics
• A guiding national, regional and world map
• not a GPS that will tell you how to get to where you want
• To inspire discussions
• About what we use our resources for
• About the efficiency with which we use resources - environmental (extraction, transport), social, economic
• Plenty of data - fragile framework
• The national, regional and global level of organization

2.0.1Environmental impact

$$I=PAT \Leftrightarrow I=PACT$$

2.0.2Developmental outcome

$$D=PAE$$

2.0.3Development outcome per environmental impact

$$\frac{D}{I} = \frac{PAE}{PAT} = \frac{E}{T}$$

$$\frac{D}{I} = \frac{PAE}{PACT} = \frac{E}{CT}$$

2.0.4Where are the resources?

Implicit in $$C & T$$

2.0.5Making resources explicit:

$$Resources, extracted: R_e, consumed: R_c, imported: R_i, exported: R_o$$

$$R_o + R_c = R_i + R_e$$

2.0.6Environmental, social and economic impacts of resource use

Using the same subscripts for I, D and economic measures $$Ec$$, for now denoting equity by $$Eq$$.

Total environmental impacts of resource use.

$$\frac {I}{R} = \frac{I}{R_o + R_c + R_i + R_e} = \frac{I_o}{R_o} + \frac{I_c}{R_c} + \frac{I_i}{R_i} + \frac{I_e}{R_e}$$

Similar statements apply for $$Ec$$ and $$D$$.

$$\frac{Ec}{R} = \frac{Ec}{R_o + R_c + R_i + R_e} = \frac{Ec_o}{R_o} + \frac{Ec_c}{R_c} + \frac{Ec_i}{R_i} + \frac{Ec_e}{R_e}$$

$$\frac{D}{R} = \frac{D}{R_o + R_c + R_i + R_e} = \frac{D_o}{R_o} + \frac{D_c}{R_c} + \frac{D_i}{R_i} + \frac{D_e}{R_e}$$

One or more of the flows may be (set to) null depending on the question or type of process investigated.

2.0.8Resource consumption elasticities of D, I, Ec

$$\log(var) = a + b * \log(R_c)$$

$$elasticity = \epsilon = b$$

Research question

Rank variables with regard to $$b$$. Assume other model than linear?

Variables with high cross-country resource elasticities should be scrutinized for more in-depth analysis. E.g. outliers within continents or development stages with partiularly high or low resource use per sustainability outcome.

2.0.9Elasticity of consumed resources to consumption balance

$$\log(var) = a + b * \log \left( R_{ci} \right) + c * \log \left( R_{ce} \right)$$

Where $$R_{ci}$$ and $$R_{ce}$$ are the resources consumed through imports and domestic extraction, respectively.

Assuming equal proportional contributions to export from extracted and imported resources

$$\log(var) = a + b * \log \left( R_i * \left(\frac {R_i}{R_c+R_o} \right) \right) + c * \log \left( R_e * \left(\frac{R_e}{R_c+R_o} \right) \right)$$

Assuming exports first by domestic resources, then by imported resources of vice versa

Needs to be filled in.

2.0.10Elasticity of consumption balance

$$\log(var) = a + b * \log \left(\frac{\left( R_{ce} - R_{ci} \right)}{\left( R_{ce} + R_{ci} \right)}\right)$$

Where $$R_{ci}$$ and $$R_{ce}$$ are the resources consumed through imports and domestic extraction, respectively.

Assuming equal proportional contributions to export from extracted and imported resources

$$\log(var) = a + b * \log \left( \frac{\left( R_{e} - R_{i} \right)}{\left( R_{e} + R_{i} \right)} * \frac{\left( R_{c} \right)}{\left( R_{c} + R_{o} \right)} \right)$$

Assuming exports first by domestic resources, then by imported resources of vice versa

Needs to be filled in.

2.0.11Key national response variables

2.0.11.1 Social variables

• Raworth variables

• basic services

• energy supply

• Households without access to electricity (Raworth 2012, OXFAM South Africa report, Development Indicators 2012, Household Survey 2012, 2013)

• Population lacking access to clean cooking facilities (OXFAM South Africa report, Development Indicators 2012, Household Survey 2012, 2013)

• Fuel poverty - 10% or more of income required to be spent on all energy (OXFAM UK report)

• 26% of households are in fuel poverty (GB 2013)
• housing

• Households without formal dwellings (OXFAM South Africa report, Development Indicators 2012, Household Survey 2012, 2013)

• Overcrowding (OXFAM UK report)

• 3% of households are overcrowded (UK 2012-2013)
• sanitation

• Households without a toilet or ventilated pit latrine (OXFAM South Africa report, Development Indicators 2012, Household Survey 2012, 2013)

• UNEP (1990-2009)
• Population connected to wastewater treatment
• WasteWaterTreatment2011.xls
• Population connected to wastewater collecting system
• WasteWaterCollect2011.xls
• Municipal waste collected
• MWCollect2011.xls
• water security / supply

• Population without access to an improved drinking water source (Raworth 2012)

• Households without access to piped water within 200m (>= Reconstruction and Development Programme standard; OXFAM South Africa report, Development Indicators 2012, Household Survey 2012, 2013)

• UNEP variable (1990-2009)
• Total population supplied by water supply industry
• ISIC36_Pop2011.xls
• livelihoods

• income

• Population living below the upper national poverty line (R577/month in 2011 Rand; OXFAM South Africa report, Development Indicators 2012, Household Survey 2012, 2013)

• Population living below $1.25 (PPP) per day (Raworth 2012) • Households below 60% average income - after housing costs (HBAI-AHC; OXFAM UK report) • 22% of households are in relative poverty (UK 2013) • National level - GINI coefficient (e.g. from World Bank, estimates from 1980 to 2013). • jobs - employment • Broad unofficial unemployment rate (adults aged 15-64 available to work; OXFAM South Africa report, Development Indicators 2012, Household Survey 2012, 2013) • Labour force not employed in decent work (Raworth 2012) • People lacking satisfying work (OXFAM UK report) • 19% of people lack satisfying work (UK 2014 Q3) • living standards • food security / supply - MDGs • Households without adequate food (OXFAM South Africa report, Development Indicators 2012, Household Survey 2012, 2013) • Population undernourished (Raworth 2012) • Adequate diet (as defined by PSE: UK; OXFAM UK report) • 7% of people cannot afford an adequate diet (UK 2012) • household goods • Households without a refrigerator (OXFAM South Africa report, Development Indicators 2012, Household Survey 2012, 2013) • safety • Households who feel unsafe walking alone in their area at night (OXFAM South Africa report, Development Indicators 2012, Household Survey 2012, 2013) • QoG variables • 4.9.2 ciri_disap Disappearance (1981-2011). Disappearances are cases in which people have disappeared, political motivation appears likely, and the victims have not been found. Knowledge of the whereabouts of the disappeared is, by de nition ,not public knowledge. However, while there is typically no way of knowing where victims are, it is typically known by whom they were taken and under what circumstances. A score of 0 indicates that disappearances have occurred frequently in a given year; a score of 1 indicates that disappearances occasionally occurred; and a score of 2 indicates that disappearances did not occur in a given year. • 4.9.8 ciri_kill Extrajudicial Killing (1981-2011). Extrajudicial killings are killings by government o cials without due process of law. They include murders by private groups if instigated by government. These killings may result from the deliberate, illegal, and excessive use of lethal force by the police, security forces, or other agents of the state whether against criminal suspects, detainees, prisoners, or others. A score of 0 indicates that extrajudicial killings were practiced frequently in a given year; a score of 1 indicates that extrajudicial killings were practiced occasionally; and a score of 2 indicates that such killings did not occur in a given year. • 4.9.10 ciri_physint Physical Integrity Rights Index (1981-2011). This is an additive index constructed from the Torture, Extrajudicial Killing, Political Imprisonment, and Disappearance indicators. It ranges from 0 (no government respect for these four rights) to 8 (full government respect for these four rights). • 4.9.14 ciri_tort Torture (1981-2011). Torture refers to the purposeful in icting of extreme pain, whether mental or physical, by government o cials or by private individuals at the instigation of government o cials. Torture includes the use of physical and other force by police and prison guards that is cruel, inhuman, or degrading. This also includes deaths in custody due to negligence by government o cials. A score of 0 indicates that torture was practiced frequently in a given year; a score of 1 indicates that torture was practiced occasionally; and a score of 2 indicates that torture did not occur in a given year. • 4.23.1 gd_ptsa Political Terror Scale - Amnesty International (N=188, 1976-2012, [1:5]). Political Terror Scale Levels: 5. Terror has expanded to the whole population. The leaders of these societies place no limits on the means or thoroughness with which they pursue personal or ideological goals. 4. Civil and political rights violations have expanded to large numbers of the population. Murders, disappearances,and torture are a common part of life. In spite of its generality, on this level terror aects those who interest themselves in politics or ideas. 3. There is extensive political imprisonment, or a recent history of such imprisonment. Execution or other political murders and brutality may be common. Unlimited detention, with or without a trial, forpolitical views is accepted. 2. There is a limited amount of imprisonment for nonviolent political activity. However, few persons are aected, torture and beatings are exceptional. Political murder is rare. 1. Countries under a secure rule of law, people are not imprisoned for their view, and torture is rare or exceptional. Political murders are extremely rare. • 4.23.2 gd_ptss Political Terror Scale - US State Department (N=188, 1976-2012, [1:5]). Political Terror Scale Levels: 5. Terror has expanded to the whole population. The leaders of these societies place no limits on the means or thoroughness with which they pursue personal or ideological goals. 4. Civil and political rights violations have expanded to large numbers of the population. Murders, disappearances,and torture are a common part of life. In spite of its generality, on this level terror aects those who interest themselves in politics or ideas. 3. There is extensive political imprisonment, or a recent history of such imprisonment. Execution or other political murders and brutality may be common. Unlimited detention, with or without a trial, forpolitical views is accepted. 2. There is a limited amount of imprisonment for nonviolent political activity. However, few persons are aected, torture and beatings are exceptional. Political murder is rare. 1. Countries under a secure rule of law, people are not imprisoned for their view, and torture is rare or exceptional. Political murders are extremely rare. • public goods • education (coverage) - MDGs • Adults without more than seven years of schooling (adult illiteracy; OXFAM South Africa report, Development Indicators 2012, Household Survey 2012, 2013) • Children not enrolled in primary school (Raworth 2012) • Children enrolled in tertiary education (Raworth 2012) • Illiteracy among 15-24-year-olds (Raworth 2012) • Adults lacking any formal qualifications (UK OXFAM report) • 23% of adult population lack any formal qualification (women 25%, men 20%) (UK 2011) • QoG variables • bl_asy25f Average Schooling Years, Female (25+) (1950-2010, every 5 years) • bl_asy25mf Average Schooling Years, Female and Male (25+) (1950-2010, every 5 years) • health - public health variables, including Millennium Development Goals • Infant immunisation coverage (OXFAM South Africa report, Development Indicators 2012, Household Survey 2012, 2013) • Population estimated to be without regular access to essential medicines (Raworth 2012) • Physical health: Years of healthy life expectancy (HLE; OXFAM UK report) • People in the most deprived areas have 15% less than the average number of years of HLE (England 2012) • Mental health: Anxiety levels (OXFAM UK report) • 20% of adults had recently experienced a high level of anxiety (women 22%, men 18%) (UK 2013-2014) • voice - governance variables? • People who do not feel free to say what they think (OXFAM South Africa report, Development Indicators 2012, Household Survey 2012, 2013) • Not defined (Raworth 2012) • CoQ variables • 4.9.1 ciri_assn Freedom of Assembly and Association (1981-2011). It is an internationally recognized right of citizens to assemble freely and to associate with other persons in political parties, trade unions, cultural organizations, or other special-interest groups. This variable indicates the extent to which the freedoms of assembly and association are subject to actual governmental limitations or restrictions (as opposed to strictly legal protections). A score of 0 indicates that citizens’ rights to freedom of assembly or association were severely restricted or denied completely to all citizens; a score of 1 indicates that these rights were limited for all citizens or severely restricted or denied for select groups; and a score of 2 indicates that these rights wer virtually unrestricted and freely enjoyed by practically all citizens in a given year. • 4.9.4 ciri_empinx_new Empowerment Rights Index (New) (1981-2011). This is an additive index constructed from the Foreign Movement, Domestic Movement, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Association, Workers’ Rights, Electoral Self-Determination, and Freedom of Religion indicators. It ranges from 0 (no government respect for these seven rights) to 14 (full government respect for these seven rights). • 4.9.5 ciri_empinx_old Empowerment Rights Index (Old) (1981-2011). This is an additive index constructed from the Freedom of Movement, Freedom of Speech, Workers’ Rights, Political Participation, and Freedom of Religion indicators. It ranges from 0 (no government respect for these ve rights) to 10 (full government respect for these ve rights). Note: Starting wit hthe 2007 coding, this variable was retired in favor of the newer index ciri_empinx_new. • 4.9.11 ciri_polpris Political Imprisonment (1981-2011). Political imprisonment refers to the incarceration of people by government o cials because of their speech; their non-violent opposition to government policies or leaders; their religious beliefs; their non-violent religious practices including proselytizing; or their membership in a group, including an ethnic or racial group. A score of 0 indicates that there were many people imprisoned because of their religious, political, or other beliefs in a given year; a score of 1 indicates that a few people were imprisoned; and a score of 2 indicates that no persons were imprisoned for any of the above reasons in a given year. • 4.9.13 ciri_speech Freedom of Speech (1981-2011). This variable indicates the extent to which freedoms of speech and press are aected by government censorship, including ownership of media outlets. Censorship is any form of restriction that is placed on freedom of the press, speech or expression. Expression may be in the form of art or music. A score of 0 indicates that government censorship of the media was complete; a score of 1 indicates that there was some government censorship of the media; and a score of 2 indicates that there was no government censorship of the media in a given year. • 4.20.1 fh_cl Civil Liberties (N=207, 1972-2012, [1:7])Civil liberties allow for the freedoms of expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy without interference from the state. The more speci c list of rights considered vary over the years. Countries are graded between 1 (most free) and 7 (least free). • 4.20.3 fh_fotpsc5 Freedom of the Press, Score (2001-2012) (N=196, 2001-2012, [0:100]) The press freedom index is computed by adding three component ratings: Laws and regulations, Political pressures and controls and Economic In uences. The scale ranges from 0 (most free) to 100 (least free). • others • resilience - ???? • social equity - how to measure? • Population living on less than the median income in countries with a Gini coefficient exceeding 0.35 (Raworth 2012) • National level • GINI coefficient (e.g. from World Bank, estimates from 1980 to 2013) • Income share held by lowest 10 or 20 % quantile (World Bank poverty data, estimates 1980’s to 2010’s) • SI.DST.FRST.10 • SI.DST.FRST.20 • Poverty headcount ratio at$5 a day (PPP) or national definition including non-comparable values (% of population) (World Bank poverty data, estimates 1980’s to 2010’s) * SI.POV.5DAY - Poverty headcount ratio at \$5 a day (PPP) (% of population) * SI.POV.NAHC.NC - Poverty headcount ratio at national definition including non-comparable values (% of population)

• gender equality - how to measure? - MDGs

• Employment gap between women and men in waged work (excluding agriculture) (Raworth 2012)

• Representation gap between women and men in national parliaments (Raworth 2012)

• governance

• Sense of personal political efficacy (OXFAM UK report)

• 59% of people feel they have no say in what the government does (GB 2012)

• World Bank world wide governance indicators (1996-2013)

• Voice and Accountability
• Regulatory Quality
• Rule of Law
• Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism
• Government Effectiveness
• Control of Corruption
• QoG variables

• Contestation and Inclusiveness, (1950-2000) These are the two principal components of 13-15 indicators of democracy, including those compiled by Freedom House; Polity; Arthur Banks; Alvarez, Cheibub, Limongi, and Przeworski, as updated by Cheibub and Gandhi; Bollen; and Cingranelli and Richards. The dataset covers most countries in the world from 1950 through 2000. In an article in the Journal of Politics (July 2008), Angel Alvarez, Claudia Maldonado, and I argue that these principal components, which capture 75 percent of variation in the most commonly used democracy indicators, measure Robert Dahl’s two dimensions of polyarchy: contestation and inclusiveness. We recommend that scholars use the standardized versions of these components (CONTESTstd and INCLUSstd), which have been adjusted to be comparable from year to year.”

• cam_contest Contestation (standardized version)
• cam_inclusive Inclusiveness (standardized version)
• 4.9.7 ciri_injud Independence of the Judiciary This variable indicates the extent to which the judiciary is independent of control from other sources, such as another branch of the government or the military. A score of 0 indicates “not independent”“, a score of 1 indicates”partially independent“” and a score of 2 indicates “generally independent”.

• 4.20.4 fh_ipolity2 Freedom House/Imputed Polity (N=207, 1972-2012, [0:10]). Scale ranges from 0-10 where 0 is least democratic and 10 most democratic. Average of Freedom House (fh_pr and fh_cl) is transformed to a scale 0-10 and Polity (p_polity2) is transformed to a scale 0-10. These variables are averaged into fh_polity2. The imputed version has imputed values for countries where data on Polity is missing by regressing Polity on the average Freedom House measure. Hadenius & Teorell (2005) show that this average index performs better both in terms of validity and reliability than its constituent parts.

• 4.20.5 fh_polity2 Freedom House/Polity (N=179, 1972-2012, [0:10]). Scale ranges from 0-10 where 0 is least democratic and 10 most democratic. Average of Freedom House (fh_pr and fh_cl) is transformed to a scale 0-10 and Polity (p_polity2) is transformed to a scale 0-10. These variables are averaged into fh_polity2.

• 4.20.6 fh_pr Political Rights (N=207, 1972-2012, [0:7]). Political rights enable people to participate freely in the political process, including the right to vote freely for distinct alternatives in legitimate elections, compete for public oce, join political parties and organizations, and elect representatives who have a decisive impact on public policies and are accountable to the electorate. The specic list of rights considered varies over the years. Countries are graded between 1 (most free) and 7 (least free).

• 4.20.7 fh_status Status (N=207, 1972-2012, [0:7]). (1) Free. (2) Partly Free. (3) Not Free. Until 2003, countries whose combined average ratings for Political Rights and Civil Liberties fell between 1.0 and 2.5 were designated “Free”“; between 3.0 and 5.5”Partly Free“”, and between 5.5 and 7.0 “Not Free”. Since then, countries whose ratings average 1.0 to 2.5 are considered “Free”“, 3.0 to 5.0”Partly Free“, and 5.5 to 7.0”Not Free“.

• 4.28.2 h_polcon3 Political Constraints Index III (N=201, 1946-2012, [0:1]). This index measures the feasibility of policy change, i.e. the extent to which a change in the preferences of any one political actor may lead to a change in government policy. The index is composed from the following information: the number of independent branches of government with veto power over policy change, counting the executive and the presence of an eective lower and upper house in the legislature (more branches leading to more constraint); the extent of party alignment across branches of government, measured as the extent to which the same party or coalition of parties control each branch (decreasing the level of constraint); and the extent of preference heterogeneity within each legislative branch, measured as legislative fractionalization in the relevant house (increasing constraint for aligned executives, decreasing it for opposed executives). The index scores are derived from a simple spatial model and theoretically ranges from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating more political constraint and thus less feasibility of policy change. Note that the coding reects information as of January 1 in any given year. Henisz (2002) uses this index to demonstrate that political environments that limit the feasibility of policy change are an important determinant of investment in infrastructure.

• 4.33.1 icrg_qog ICRG Indicator of Quality of Government (N=147, 1984-2012, [0:1]). The mean value of the ICRG variables “Corruption”“,”Law and Order" and “Bureaucracy Quality”, scaled 0-1. Higher values indicate higher quality of government.

• connectivity (???household goods???)

• People who do have not internet connection due to barriers such as affordability and complexity (OXFAM UK report)
• transport

• No defined / identified (OXFAM UK report)

• QoG variables

• 4.9.3 ciri_dommov Freedom of Domestic Movement (1981-2011) This variable indicates citizens’ freedom to travel within their own country. A score of 0 indicates that this freedom was severely restricted, a score of 1 indicates the freedom was somewhat restricted, and a score of 2 indicates unrestricted freedom of foreign movement.
• crime (???safety???)

• Risk of victimization (OXFAM UK report)

• 17% of adults were victims of crime within the past 12 months (women 16.7%, men 17.4%) (England and Wales 2013-2014)
• local environment

• Access to the natural environment once per week (OXFAM UK report)

• 52% of people access the natural environment less than once per week (England 2013-2014)
• sense of support

• People lacking satisfying work (UK OXFAM report)

• 10% of people have little or no support in times of need (UK 2012)
• economic freedoms

• 4.21.2 _index_cl Economic Freedom of the World Index (chain-linked) (N=123, 1970-2010, [0:10]). One problem with the version of the index of economic freedom (_index) is that the underlying data is more complete in recent years than in earlier years. As a result, changes in the index ratings over time may reect the fact that some components are missing in some years but not in others.The problem of missing components threatens the comparability of the index ratings over time. In order to correct for this problem, the Fraser Institute has constructed a chain-linked summary index of economic freedom that is based on the 2000 rating as a base year. Changes to the index going backward (and forward) in time are then based only on changes in components that were present in adjacent years. The chain-linked methodology means that a country’s rating will change across time periods only when there is a change in ratings for components present during both of the over-lapping years. This is precisely what one would want when making comparisons across time periods.

• 4.29.1 hf_corrupt Freedom from Corruption (N=183, 1994-2013, [0:10]). This factor relies on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), which measures the level of corruption in 152 countries, to determine the freedom from corruption scores of countries that are also listed in the Index of Economic Freedom. The CPI is based on a 10-point scale in which a score of 10 indicates very little corruption and a score of 0 indicates a very corrupt government. In scoring freedom from corruption, the authors convert each of these raw CPI data to a 0-100 scale by multiplying the CPI scores by 10.

• 4.29.2 hf_escore Economic Freedom Index (N=183, 1994-2013, [0:10]). The Economic Freedom index uses 10 specic freedoms, some as composites of even further detailed and quantiable components: Business freedom (hf_business), Trade freedom (hf_trade), Fiscal freedom (hf_scal), Freedom from government (hf_govt), Monetary freedom (hf_monetary), Investment freedom (hf_invest), Financial freedom (hf_nanc), Property rights (hf_prights), Freedom from corruption (hf_corrupt), Labor freedom (hf_labor). Each of these freedoms is weighted equally and turned into an index ranging from 0 to 100, where 100 represents the maximum economic freedom. Although changes in methodology have been undertaken throughout the measurement period, continuous backtracking has been used to maximize comparability over time.

• 4.29.3 hf_govt Freedom from Government (N=182, 1994-2013, [0:100]). Scoring of the freedom from government factor is based on two components: Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP, Revenues generated by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and property as a percentage of total government revenue. Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is weighted as two-thirds of the freedom from government factor score, and revenue from SOEs is weighted as one-third. In cases where SOE data does not exist, the data is excluded from the factor score. The country’s freedom from government ranges between 0 and 100, where 100 represents the maximum degree of freedom from government.

• 4.29.5 hf_prights Property Rights (N=180, 1994-2013, [0:100]). This factor scores the degree to which a country’s laws protect private property rights and the degree to which its government enforces those laws. It also accounts for the possibility that private property will be expropriated. In addition, it analyzes the independence of the judiciary, the existence of corruption within the judiciary, and the ability of individuals and businesses to enforce contracts. The less certain the legal protection of property is and the greater the chances of government expropriation of property are, the higher a country’s score is. The country’s property rights score ranges from 0 and 100, where 100 represents the maximum degree of protection of property rights.

• 4.29.6 hf_trade Trade Freedom (N=182, 1994-2013, [0:100]). The trade freedom score is based on two inputs: The trade-weighted average tari rate, Non-tariff barriers (NTBs). Weighted average taris is a purely quantitative measure and accounts for the basic calculation of the score. The presence of NTBs in a country aects its trade freedom score by incurring a penalty of up to 20 percentage points, or one-fth of the maximum score. The country’s trade freedom ranges between 0 and 100, where 100 represents the maximum degree of trade freedom.

• HDI
1. Life Expectancy Index $$LEI = \frac{LE - 20}{85-20}$$

2. Education Index $$EI = \frac{MYSI + EYSI}{2}$$

2.1 Mean Years of Schooling Index $$MYSI = \frac{MY}{15}$$ [6]

2.2 Expected Years of Schooling Index $$EYSI = \frac{EYS}{18}$$ [7]

1. Income Index $$II = \frac{\ln(GNIpc) - \ln(100)}{\ln(75,000) - \ln(100)}$$

Finally, the HDI is the geometric mean of the previous three normalized indices: $$HDI = \sqrt[3]{LEI * EI * II}$$.

LE: Life expectancy at birth MYS: Mean years of schooling (Years that a 25-year-old person or older has spent in schools) EYS: Expected years of schooling (Years that a 5-year-old child will spend with his education in his whole life) GNIpc: Gross national income at purchasing power parity per capita

• sources for social variables

• UK OXFAM REPORT

• The main sources used for this report are:
• The Impoverishment of the UK (Poverty and Social Exclusion: UK (PSE: UK), led by theUniversity of Bristol);
• Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion (Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) and the NewPolicy Institute (NPI));
• The Minimum Income Standard (MIS) (University of Loughborough and JRF);
• ONS Well-being Consultation;
• The Equalities Measurement Framework (Equalities and Human Rights Commission);
• The Oxfam Humankind Index for Scotland (Oxfam).

2.0.11.2 Economic variables

• personal income (median and inequality)

• national - GDP per capita

2.0.11.3 Environmental variables

• land use change (resource extraction)

• Extraction:
• Use hyde database and satellite images from 2000, 2005, 2010 to look at extraction efficiency. Take into account land use change
• Consumption:
• Rain-fed arable land converted to cropland (OXFAM South Africa report)

• Consumption of land-use change (ha; OXFAM UK report)

• United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)-based per capita UK boundary: 0.2 ha/capita. 0.7 ha/capita, exceeding boundary by 250% (UK 2007).
• biodiversity loss

• Extraction:

• National biodiversity index - red list index - living planet index
• Consumption
• Biodiversity threats embodied in trade (Lenzen et al. 2012).
• Extinction rate (number of species per million species per year) (Rockstrom et al. 2009)

• Endangered ecosystems (OXFAM, South Africa report)

• UK Farmland Birds Index (OXFAM UK report)

• effort indicator variables

• Protected area (1990-2009)
• Proportion Marine Protected Areas_TS_2010.xls
• Proportion Terrestrial Protected Areas_TS_2010.xls
• ProtectedAreas_Proportion_All.xls
• state indicator variables

• Forested area
• ForestTimeSeries_2010.xls
• climate change (resource consumption - not yet measured)

• Consumption:

• Consumption of CO2 (MtCO2) (OXFAM UK report)

• freshwater use (resource consumption or extraction)

• Consumption:
• Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Bhaduri, A., Kanemoto, K., Bekchanov, M., Geschke, A., Foran, B. (2013) International Trade of Scarce Water. Ecological Economics 94, pp78-85. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.018
• Extraction / DMC

• Available freshwater consumed (OXFAM, South Africa report)

• Consumption of freshwater by humans (km3/yr) (OXFAM, South Africa report)

• nitrogen and phosphorous cycles/emission (resource consumption/was)

• Extraction:
• Could look at emissions from agriculture and aquaculture.
• Consumption:
• Needs to be conducted in an MRIO framework.
• Amount N2 removed from atmosphere for human use (Mt/yr) (Rockstrom et al. 2009)

• Nitrogen application rate (OXFAM South Africa report)

• Phosphorous flowing into oceans (PMt/yr) (Rockstrom et al. 2009)

• Total P concentration in dams (P mg/l) (OXFAM South Africa report)

• Phosphorous loads in UK rivers (OXFAM UK report)

• UNEP variables (2002-2008)

• Fertilizer area intensities
• Fertilizers_Nitrogen time series_updated.xls
• Fertilizers_Phosphate time series_updated.xls
• Fertilizers_Potash time series_updated.xls
• ocean accidification

• ??? hard to measure due to mixing of ocean and ocean and atmosphere - and what are the resources consumed ???
• chemical pollution

• ??? industry emissions - public health - but what are the resources consumed ???

• Not defined (Rockstrom et al. 2009; South Africa, OXFAM South Africa report)

• Chemical quality of UK rivers (UK OXFAM report)

• Failure to achieve classifi-cation of good chemical quality. 20% of rivers fail to achieve good chemical quality (England 2009).

• ??? industry emissions - but what are the consumed resosurces ???
• Overall particulate concentration in the atmosphere (Global)
• ozone depletion

• Ozone concentration (Dobson units) (South Africa, OXFAM South Africa report)
• Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) (OXFAM UK report)
• Consumptive use of ODS. Zero emissions of ODS. Boundary not exceeded.
• Annual consumption of HCFCs (Rockstrom et al. 2009)
• ??? measure CFC emissions, but what are the resources ???
• Air pollution

• Annual mean PM10 concentration in ug/m3 (South Africa, OXFAM South Africa report)

• Particulate concentration (PM10; OXFAM UK report)

• Overall particulate concentration in the atmosphere (Rockstrom et al. 2009)

• Ocean health

• % of fish stocks harvested sustainably by UK vessels (UK OXFAM report)

*100% of fishing classified as sustainably harvested. 64% of UK fish harvested unsustainably (UK 2012).

• Freshwater use

• Consumption of freshwater by humans (km3/yr) (Rockstrom et al. 2009)

2.0.11.4 Material/energy use variables

• UNEP variables
• Commercial energy comsumption pere Capita
• Energy use per capita_c2.xls

3 BEYOND RESOURCE INTENSITY AND PRODUCTIVITY

• which sustainability variables have a high resource elasticity
• which sustainability variables have a high resource elasticity to changes in the consumption balance in imports and exports?
• provide a multi-variate dashboard for resource influence on sustainability variables
• add multi-variate assessment of resource efficiency to suggested environmental and development metrics

4 MAIN RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• what do we use resources for
• social
• health
• well-being
• culture
• our relation to the environment
• economic
• environmental
• what is the impact of our socio-economic activity on the environment
• what is our relation to to the biosphere

5 LIMITATIONS OF THE MRIO APPROACH

From (Wiedmann et al. 2013)

• “The two data sources used in this work are the global MRIO database Eora and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Global Material Flow Database.”

• “S2.3. Methodological Limitations. Recent advances in global MRIO modeling (2, 12) now provide the means to analyze and monitor the MF of nations more reliably than before. However, the method is not without limitations. MRIO accounts are provided initially in monetary terms rather than physical terms. So-called”price errors" can be introduced where individual transactions occur with a different price (dollars per quantity) than average. Allocation errors can occur due to low sectoral or product resolution. For example, a kilogram of gold included in a broad category of materials (e.g., “ores”) allocated to a broad production sector (e.g., “metals and mining”) will not be traced to its final demand as accurately as if gold were differentiated as a distinct input category and the MRIO used distinguished, more specific “gold,” “precious metals,” or “nonferrous metals” sectors rather than a broad metals and mining sector. In this study, we differentiated 35 types of materials and the MRIO used between 25 and 510 industrial sectors per country (5). For countries with more raw material-producing sectors, the allocation of DE data are therefore more accurate than for countries where fewer such sectors are available. For example, if there is just one “aggregate” extraction sector, a part of the “building stone” material flow might be allocated to the chemical industry because some limestone (which is also extracted by the aggregate"

• “The limited resolution of some national input-output tables also constrains the method’s ability in addressing issues around critical metals and resource security due to the facts that (i) many of the critical metals are”specialty metals," which are use for very specific applications that cannot be easily represented by flows between aggregate sectors/products, and (ii) resource security roblems often arise from the presence of mono- or oligopoly structures within a sector. This is an area where hybrid approaches can be very useful. Here, input-output analysis (IOA) is combined with elements from process-based life cycle assessment (LCA) methods, such as those applied by Schoer et al. (13) in a study of the raw material consumption (RMC) of the European Union (EU). The hybrid method takes advantage of truncation-free enumeration of supply chains via IOA and productspecific detail via LCA (14-16). The current framework provides an important first step toward understanding potential risks associated with the global resource supply chain. More detailed information can be added targeting the hotspots identified through a hybrid approach, where process-specific information and aggregate product-level information are integrated. More general elaborations on the uncertainty of"

6 COMPARISON OF THE MRIO APPROACH TO TMC AND TMR

TMR - Total Material Requirement

TMC - Total Materical Consumption

From (Wiedmann et al. 2013)

• “To calculate TMC and TMR, material intensity factors of imports and exports are derived from simplified life cycle inventories (4, 25). A drawback of this LCA factor method is that”that the ecological rucksack of a good which is passing more than one border in one or different process stages is counted more than one time within the volume" (4). This double-counting problem does not occur inMF calculations based on IOA because DE volumes are merely reallocated from production to consumption in a mutually exclusive and collectively comprehensive way. A further complication of the factor method used in TMC/TMR calculations is that coefficients of indirect material flows of imports and exports are mostly derived from specific production systems, such as Germany or the EU (25).“”

7 DIFFERENTIATING MSE FROM OTHER FIELDS

• Related to global sustainability studies and sustainability science
• Related to socio-ecology
• Related to macroecology
• Related to macroeconomics

8 HOW - THE TOOLBOX OF MACRO-SOCIO-ECOLOGY

• Cross-country comparisons
• Linking earth system science to social dimensions
• Development of methods to study teleconnected socio-ecologicla dynamics
• Composite indicators such as Genuine Progress Indicator
• Scenario?

8.1 THE CORE

Is the core of macro-socio-ecology relating resource consumption to social outcomes and environmental impacts?

9 REFERENCES

The following literature was cited

Wiedmann, Thomas O, Heinz Schandl, Manfred Lenzen, Daniel Moran, Sangwon Suh, James West, and Keiichiro Kanemoto. 2013. “The material footprint of nations.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, September. doi:10.1073/pnas.1220362110.