The last aspect on which we want to elaborate in this theoretical introduction to socio-ecological modelling concerns the limitations of its use. In order to set the path towards the proposal of new horizons that reflect on the policies of sustainable agrarian systems’ design, we want to avoid embracing a positivist standpoint. We are determined to keep away from the cartesian illusion of an entirely modelized society that astonishingly extends his mechanistic approach to social relations, despite the fact that it seems to be clear evidence of its irrational nature (Saltelli and Giampietro, 2017). For this main reason, a careful assessment of the factors that could be detrimental to the success of the model has to be carried out. As we already mentioned, the model does not become an end in itself but a tool which, based on the reflexive and self-poietic process of society, must be applied to achieve a specific goal – in this case, a sustainable agrarian system.
According to Saltelli and Giampietro (2017), the assessment of the likelihood of success in the application of a proposal through public policies comprises three main types of capabilities:
• Feasibility: these are processes which are out of reach to human control – i.e. internal processes. In our case we consider biophysical processes related to the underlying
Chapter 5. Socio-ecological modelling of agroecosystems
thermodynamic, physical, chemical and biological principles of agroecosystems.
• Viability: these include processes that are under human control, which in the present case translates to the interaction between society and nature. As we will show later, a further differentiation is appropriate in our model and we will differentiate between technical viability and cash viability.
• Desirability: this is a fundamental feature to be taken into account in the model, for the result of the application of SFRA must be desirable in social terms. This is the result of relying on social intentionality.
As can be appreciated in Figure 5.1, the model groups selected capabilities and tailors them in order to enhance its effects on others. To estimate wether they interact in a juxtaposed or in a hierarchical fashion, it is mandatory to go to the roots of both the discipline from which we approach the problem as well as of the particular problems that the case agroecosystem under study is challenging.
In first place, in embracing the point of view of Ecological Economics, our aim is to contribute to Strong Sustainability by means of a reinterpretation of the functioning of markets as sub-systems of human economy – which in its turn depends on ecology in a broader sense (Foster, 2000). The ultimate goal of our approach is to identify the way in which market mechanisms can be established in order to guarantee social-nature relations that do not endanger the sustainability of the territory. We understand it as a strategy of transformation that confronts the current global food regime system (Levidow et al., 2014). The ultimate goal, however ambitious it might seem, is to move forward towards a definition of novel cash exchanges effectively subjugated to particular social and territorial restrictions that allow to shape more resilient and sustainable agroecosystems.
These restrictions include not only what Cronon (1991) defines as first-nature variables (the boundaries strictly relying on biophysical constrains) but also those of second nature affected by social relationships – i.e. cultural practices, technological development and relationships between the different agents of the society. Among all possible restrictions, there are two categories that strongly determine the range of possible uses of a territory, disregarding the role of society itself, namely the biophysical limitations and the available cultural technologies and practices. According to the definition of Saltelli & Giampietro (2017), these would respectively correspond to the already mentioned feasibility and the subcategory technical viability. By means of these two main restrictions, which are determined by the environment and the context of technical-agronomic development beforehand, the structure of the model is set up (Figure 5.1).
All this frames a region of technical-ecological possibilities of agroecosystems termed as site-time specific.
By taking into account considerations about the social suitability of the model, this region of technical-ecological possibilities defined by the restrictions of feasibility and technical viability will be further narrowed. This leads us to the consideration of structure-information, which requires a clear definition of the social objectives according to which we want to design agrarian systems. As pointed out in section 5, this definition implies the introduction of the desirability into our ‘equation’ - i.e. the need to elucidate the intent according to which we want to optimize these scarce resources. Within the structure of the model, this concerns the objective function that determines what has to be maximized or minimized in a territory based on the region of possibilities. As we will show later, it is precisely this objective function that finally leads towards different scenarios.
Chapter 5. Socio-ecological modelling of agroecosystems
By saying that, we do by no means suggest that the whole complexity contained in the concept of desirability is going to be reduced to one single function. This would lack the dialectic approach that an appropriate consideration of social factors requires. Within the structure of the model, there are aspects that respond rather to social desires (notice again that in this sense we refer to a strict society-nature interaction) than to the prevailing needs of the biophysical or technical limiters (e.g. the conservation of certain forest areas due to its historical or cultural value). Nevertheless, from a social perspective, it is certainly required to make choices about the aspect according to which we want to optimize the use of resources. In case multiple goals are simultaneouly pertinent, they can be weighted according to relevance or a hierarchical relationship between them can be established. As will be seen in Chapter 9 about further research, there are several mathematical tools (such as multicriteria analysis or hierarchical optimizations) that allow to cope with these more complex situations indicative of the interaction of multiple social interests, while maintaining the structure of the model. Based on social desires, the process of selection of an optimal point from within a region of possibilities, urges a serious collective and social deliberation. However, as we will show, this is not the only point to be made.
Given the structure of a model that guarantees both feasibility and technical viability, we run the SFRA based on desirability. This allows us to obtain a horizon scenario in which both the structure of funds as well as the flows that guarantee the reproducibility of the agroecosystem in organic terms are defined.
In Chapter 7 we will define the horizons based on all the above mentioned characteristics.
This is however just the first step towards the achievement of the ultimate goals of Ecological Economics as a tool for strong sustainability. Once we set the frame for the design of scenarios on an agroecosystem that fulfill the requirements of feasibility, desirability and technically viability, and assuming it is already socially validated, the next step will be to asses the cash viability. This requires the conception of suitable policies to guarantee that the socio-ecological aspects taken into account before are not adversely affected by an incoherent cash exchange.
Based on the theoretical developments on the relative price relationships between goods, labor
Figure 5.1. Conceptual scheme for the capabilities considered in SFRA modelling. Source: Our own. The bottom drawing on diffraction of light holds a Creative Common License, from Suidroot.
Chapter 5. Socio-ecological modelling of agroecosystems
and capital framed by Marco et al., (forthcoming), our model could give hints about which are the most appropriate converters (prices, salaries and profits) that need to be modified and to which extent. This would clear the path towards the design of public policies in order to define regulations, tax, subsidies, planning, etc. It has to be noticed that the agricultural sector is a fundamental area for life sustainibility and that policies at European level are already subsidizing this activity in a markedly interventionist way. In view of the results of the Common Agricultural Policy and the social and environmental impacts it has had (both internally and externally), we strongly encourage a profound reconsideration of the same, with a systemic vision and a clear socially desirable horizon.
As it is now hopefully clear, our proposal addresses the material dimensions of social metabolism in its strict society-nature interaction, and not among individuals within the society.
Regardless of considerations about the democratization of processes, there are issues that can reveal itself as critical in order to guarantee an agroecological commitment – above all, for instance, the access to resources. Most likely, this suggests that several institutional changes would be necessary in order to cope with these issues through a positive and confident intervention of the immaterial dimensions of social metabolism (González de Molina and Toledo, 2014). In the frame of our research, however, we have limited the study to the material dimension by identifying horizons in an hypothetically pre-established situation of equitable access to resources, assuming full information and flow flexibility. Any scenario of social relations other than the one we have assumed, would lead to a reduction in the efficiency of the use of resources and consequently to a reduction in the degree of optimization of the resulting agroecosystems.
9. References
An, L., 2012. Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: Review of agent-based models. Ecol. Modell. 229, 25–36. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.07.010
Antrop, M., 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc. Urban Plan.
70, 21–34. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002
Barceló, A., 1994. Teoría económica y enfoque de la reproducción. Cuad. Econ. 22, 5–32.
Bellamy, A.S., Ioris, A.A.R., 2017. Addressing the Knowledge Gaps in Agroecology and Identifying Guiding Principles for Transforming Conventional Agri-Food Systems.
Sustainability 9, 1–17. doi:10.3390/su9030330
Bergez, J.E., Chabrier, P., Gary, C., Jeuffroy, M.H., Makowski, D., Quesnel, G., Ramat, E., Raynal, H., Rousse, N., Wallach, D., Debaeke, P., Durand, P., Duru, M., Dury, J., Faverdin, P., Gascuel-Odoux, C., Garcia, F., 2013. An open platform to build, evaluate and simulate integrated models of farming and agro-ecosystems. Environ. Model. Softw. 39, 39–49.
doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.03.011
Bulatkin, G.A., 2012. Analysis of energy flows in agroecosystems. Her. Russ. Acad. Sci. 82, 326–
334. doi:10.1134/S1019331612040089
Chayanov, A. V, [1925] 1986. La organización de la unidad económica campesina. Ediciones Nueva Visión, Buenos Aires.
Chibnik, M., 1984. A Cross-cultural Examination of Chayanov’s Theory. Curr. Anthropol. 25, 335–340.
Colomé, J., 2015. Pequeña explotación agrícola, reproducción de las unidades familiares campesinas y mercado de trabajo en la viticultura mediterránea del siglo XIX: el caso catalán. Rev. Hist. Económica 18, 281–307. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Cong, R.G., Ekroos, J., Smith, H.G., Brady, M. V., 2016. Optimizing intermediate ecosystem
services in agriculture using rules based on landscape composition and configuration indices. Ecol. Econ. 128, 214–223. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.05.006
Cronon, W., 1991. Nature’s metropolis. Norton, New York.
Dantzing, G.B., 1963. Linear Programming and Extensions. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Desjardins, E., MacRae, R., Schumilas, T., 2010. Linking future population food requirements
Chapter 5. Socio-ecological modelling of agroecosystems
for health with local production in Waterloo Region, Canada. Agric. Human Values 27, 129–140. doi:10.1007/s10460-009-9204-y
Duru, M., Therond, O., Fares, M., 2015. Designing agroecological transitions; A review. Agron.
Sustain. Dev. 35, 1237–1257. doi:10.1007/s13593-015-0318-x
FAO, 2013. Comparative table : Eco-functional , sustainable and ecological intensification 9.
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Haberl, H., 2007. Socioecological Transitions and Global Change.
Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land-use. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Foster, J.B., 2000. Marx’s ecology: Materialism and Nature. Monthly Review Press, New York.
Fritz, T., 2012. Globalizar el hambre. Impactos de la Política Agraria Común (PAC) y de las políticas comerciales de la UE en la soberanía alimentaria y los países del Sur. ACSUR-Las Segovias, Madrid.
Georgescu-Roegen, N., 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Gerber, J.F., Scheidel, A., 2018. In search of substantive economics : comparing today’s two major socio-metabolic approaches to the economy – MEFA and MuSIASEM. Ecol. Econ.
144, 186–194.
Gerber, J.D., Gerber, J.F., 2017. Decommodification as a foundation for ecological economics.
Ecol. Econ. 131, 551–556. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.030
Giampietro, M., 1997. Socioeconomic constraints to farming with biodiversity. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 63, 145–167. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(97)00014-5
Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K., Sorman, A.H., 2013. Energy Analysis for Sustainable Future:
Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Societal and Ecosystem Metabolism. Routledge, London.
Gilbert, N., 2007. Agent-Based Models (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences), Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. SAGE Publications, New York.
doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-080812-191558
Gliessmann, S., 1998. Agroecology: ecological processes in sustainable agriculture. Lewis Publishers, London.
González de Molina, M., Caporal, F., 2013. Agroecology and Politics. How To Get Sustainability? About the Necessity for a Political Agroecology. Agroecol. Sustain. food Syst. 37, 45–59. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
González de Molina, M., Guzmán, G.I., 2017. Agroecology and Ecological Intensification. A Discussion from a Metabolic Point of View. Sustainability 9, 86. doi:10.3390/su9010086 González de Molina, M., Toledo, V., 2014. The Social Metabolism. Springer.
Grabaum, R., Meyer, B.C., 1998. Multicriteria optimization of landscapes using GIS-based functional assessments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 43, 21–34. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00099-1
Guzmán, G.I., González de Molina, M., Alonso, A., 2011. The land cost of agrarian sustainability.
An assessment. Land-use policy 28, 825–835. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.01.010 Haberl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Weisz, H., Winiwarter, V., 2004. Progress
towards sustainability? What the conceptual framework of material and energy flow accounting (MEFA) can offer. Land Use Pol. 21, 199–213.
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.013
Harper, K.A., Macdonald, S.E., Burton, P.J., Chen, J., Brosofske, D., Saunders, S.C., Euskirchen, E.S., Roberts, D., Jaiteh, M.S., 2005. Edge Influence on Forest Structure and Composition in Fragmented Landscapes Edge Influence on Forest Structure and Composition in Fragmented Landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 19, 768–782.
Hendrix, P.F., Coleman, D.C., Crossley, D.A., 1992. Using knowledge of soil nutrient cycling processes to design sustainable agriculture. J. Sustain. Agric. 2, 63–82.
doi:10.1300/J064v02n03
Ho, M.-W., Ulanowicz, R., 2005. Sustainable systems as organisms? Biosystems. 82, 39–51.
doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2005.05.009
Kantorovich, L.V., 1939. Mathematical Methods of Organizing and Planning Production.
Manage. Sci. 6, 366–422.
Knoke, T., Paul, C., Härtl, F., Castro, L.M., Calvas, B., Hildebrandt, P., 2015. Optimizing
Chapter 5. Socio-ecological modelling of agroecosystems
agricultural land-use portfolios with scarce data-A non-stochastic model. Ecol. Econ. 120, 250–259. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.021
Krausmann, F., 2004. Milk, Manure, and Muscle Power. Livestock and the Transformation of Preindustrial Agriculture in Central Europe. Hum. Ecol. 32, 735–772. doi:10.1007/s10745-004-6834-y
Leach, G., 1975. Energy and food production. Food Policy 1, 62–76.
Leontief, W., 1966. Input-Output Economics. Oxford University Press, New York.
Levidow, L., Pimbert, M., Vanloqueren, G., 2014. Agroecological Research: Conforming—or Transforming the Dominant Agro-Food Regime? Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 38, 1127–
1155. doi:10.1080/21683565.2014.951459
Lichtfouse, E., Navarrete, M., Debaeke, P., Lichtfouse, E., Navarrete, M., Debaeke, P., 2009.
Agronomy for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29, 1–6.
doi:10.1051/agro
Lomas, P.L., Giampietro, M., 2017. Environmental accounting for ecosystem conservation:
Linking societal and ecosystem metabolisms. Ecol. Modell. 346, 10–19.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.12.009
Marco, I., Padró, R., Cattaneo, C., Caravaca, J., Tello, E., 2017. From vineyards to feedlots : A fund-flow scanning of sociometabolic transitions in the Vallès County (Catalonia) 1860-1956-1999. Reg. Environ. Chang. 1–13. doi:10.1007/s10113-017-1172-y
Marco, I., Padró, R., Tello, E., n.d. Labour, Nature and Exploitation: A first exploration on the relationships between Social Metabolism and Inequality in Traditional Organic Farm Systems. Forthcoming.
Martins, N.O., 2016. Ecosystems, strong sustainability and the classical circular economy. Ecol.
Econ. 129, 32–39. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.003
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., Behrens, W.W., 1972. The limits to growth.
Univers Books, New York. doi:10.1016/0007-6813(73)90029-3
Meier, T., Christen, O., 2013. Environmental impacts of dietary recommendations and dietary styles: Germany as an example. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 877–888.
doi:10.1021/es302152v
Meyer, B.C., Lescot, J.M., Laplana, R., 2009. Comparison of two spatial optimization techniques:
A framework to solve multiobjective land-use distribution problems, Environmental Management. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9225-0
Passet, R., 1996. Principios de bioeconomía. Fundacion Argentaria, Madrid.
Peters, C.J., Wilkins, J.L., Fick, G.W., 2007. Testing a complete-diet model for estimating the land resource requirements of food consumption and agricultural carrying capacity: The New York State example. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 22, 145–153.
doi:10.1017/S1742170507001767
Pimentel, D., Hurd, L.E., Bellotti, A.C., Forster, M.J., Oka, I.N., Sholes, O.D., Whitman, R.J., 1973. Food production and the energy crisis. Science 182, 443–449.
Podolinsky, S.A., 1880. El trabajo del ser humano y su relación con la distribución de la energía, in: Los Principios de La Economia Ecológica (1995). Fundacion Argentaria, Madrid, pp.
63–142.
Polanyi, K., 1944. The great transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time.
Beacon Press.
Prigogine, I., 1997. End of certainty. The Free Press, New York.
Prigogine, I., 1983. ¿Tan sólo una ilusion? Una exploracion del caos al orden. Tusquets, Barcelona.
Robinson, J., Eatwell, J., 1973. An introduction to modern economics. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Madrid.
Sadeghi, S.H.R., Jalili, K., Nikkami, D., 2009. use optimization in watershed scale. Land-use policy 26, 186–193. doi:10.1016/j.landLand-usepol.2008.02.007
Saltelli, A., Giampietro, M., 2017. What is wrong with evidence based policy? Futures 1–30.
Seppelt, R., Voinov, A., 2003. Optimization methodology for land-use patterns - Evaluation based on multiscale habitat pattern comparison. Ecol. Modell. 168, 217–231. doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00138-8
Chapter 5. Socio-ecological modelling of agroecosystems
Silici, L., 2014. Agroecology. What It Is And What It Has To Offer. Int. Inst. Environ. Dev.
London 1–27.
Smit, B., 1981. Procedures for the long-term evaluation of rural land. Guelph.
Stewart, T.J., Janssen, R., Van Herwijnen, M., 2004. A genetic algorithm approach to multiobjective land-use planning. Comput. Oper. Res. 31, 2293–2313. doi:10.1016/S0305-0548(03)00188-6
Tannenbaum, N., 1984. The misuse of Chayanov: “Chayanov’s Rule” and empiricist bias in anthropology. Am. Anthropol. 86, 927–942.
Tello, E., 2005. La historia cuenta. Del crecimiento económico al desarrollo humano sostenible.
El Viejo Topo, Barcelona.
Tello, E., González de Molina, M., 2017. Methodological Challenges and General Criteria for Assessing and Designing Local Sustainable Agri-Food Systems: A Socio-Ecological Approach at Landscape Level, in: Socio-Metabolic Perspectives on the Sustainability of Local Food Systems Insights for Science , Policy and Practice. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 1–44.
Tittonell, P., 2014. Ecological intensification of agriculture-sustainable by nature. Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sustain. 8, 53–61. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.08.006
Van der Ploeg, J., 2014. Peasants and the Art of Farming: A Chayanovian Manifesto. Practical Action Publishing, Rugby.
Van Kernebeek, H.R.J., Oosting, S.J., Van Ittersum, M.K., Bikker, P., De Boer, I.J.M., 2016.
Saving land to feed a growing population: consequences for consumption of crop and livestock products. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 677–687. doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0923-6
Vicedo, E., Colomé, J., Saguer, E., 2002. Las condiciones de reproducción económica de las unidades familiares campesinas en Cataluña a mediados del siglo XIX, in: Martínez Carrión, J.M. (Ed.), El Nivel de Vida En La España Rural, Siglos XVIII-XX. Universidad de Alicante, Alicante, pp. 321–358.
Wiber, M.G., 1985. Dynamics of the Peasant Household Economy : Labor Recruitment and Allocation in an Upland Philippine. J. Anthropol. Res. 41, 427–441. doi:10.2307/3630573 Zhang, Y., 2013. Urban metabolism: A review of research methodologies. Environ. Pollut. 178,
463–473. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.03.052
Chapter 6. Beyond Chayanov, SFRA c.1860