Is there enough time for corrections? Defining Biesiot indicators

Response time and respite time

For assessing sustainable development, we have to be concerned with the viability of the different essential systems and their contribution to the via- bility of the total system. In particular we have to determine whether the viability of the different systems is improving or deteriorating. This requires concentrating on indicators that relate the rates of change of threats to the satisfaction of the different basic orientors to the rates of evasive system response, or the respite timeto the response time.44

To stay viable and sustainable, a system must be able to respond or adapt to threats before they get a chance to do serious damage. In other words, there must be enough time (respite time) for an effective response. The time it takes to get an effective response under way (response time) must be less than the respite time. The concept of respite time originated in nuclear technology.45_{Respite time, also called walk-away time, is the length of time}

a nuclear reactor can be left unattended. In current reactors, this is only a few seconds: the Chernobyl nuclear accident was a result of the respite time being much shorter than the response time.

The respite time concept is important for societal development as well. There are some destructive developments that do not leave enough time for coun- termeasures once the process has started. There are two possibilities: (1) the respite time of such processes must be lengthened, i.e., they must be slowed down, and/or (2) the response time of the system and/or its managers must be shortened. Coping successfully with these possibilities calls for early and accurate signals, i.e., proper indicators of the rate of threats and of the possi- ble speed of response. This information can be combined in one indicator, a non-dimensional Biesiot indicator, by taking the ratio of the two rates. Response time is the inverse of the rate of response: if the rate of response is high, the response time will be short. Since it is usually rates of change

that are available as indicators, it makes sense to relate a rate of response to the threatening rate of change in the system or its environment to which the system has to respond in order to remain sustainable. If this ratio is greater or equal to one, the system will stay ahead of the challenge; if it is less than one, its viability is being eroded, and its eventual survival is at stake. It’s a simple, everyday concept: if the rabbit outruns (response) the pursuing fox (threat), it will be safe; if not, it will be eaten.

Biesiot indicators for threats to basic orientors

Sustainable development implies environmental change because of the coevo- lution of human and natural systems. Changes in the human system, and changes imposed on it by its environmental system, must be slower than cor- responding adaptation processes in the human system and the natural processes on which it depends. It is, therefore, important to identify indica- tors that provide timely information about crucial changes of the human sys- tem and its environment and to relate this information to the possible rate of response with respect to each of the basic orientor categories.

We have to apply this idea to each of the basic orientors of a given system: we know that if one of them is threatened, viability will be at stake. Hence, we must define indicators that give as a clear picture of the ratio of system response rate to orientor erosion rate.

• EXISTENCE. Is the speed of escape from an existential danger greater than the speed of its approach? Example: Does the rate of increase of grain production stay ahead of the rate of increase of grain demand of a growing population?

• EFFECTIVENESS. Is the rate of increase in resource use efficiency (matter, energy, information) greater than the rate of erosion of resource availability? Example: Can the rate of water use reduction due to advances in irrigation technology offset the rate of ground- water depletion?

• FREEDOM OF ACTION. Is the rate of increase in the spectrum of possible responses (system variety) greater that the rate of appearance of new challenges (environmental variety)? Example: Are new concepts introduced into educational curricula at a suffi- cient rate to keep up with the rate of increase of diversity and vari- ety in society and technology?

• SECURITY. Does the rate of installation of protective measures keep up with the rate of increase of threats? Example: Are dikes thrown up quickly enough to stop a rising flood?

• ADAPTABILITY. Does the rate of structural change in the system keep up with the rate of irreversible changes in the environment? Example: Can the rate of creation of new jobs in new industries keep up with the rate of jobs lost to productivity increases? • COEXISTENCE. Can the rate of change in interaction and com-

munication keep up with the rate of appearance of new actors? Example: Can the perceptions and prejudices in a community change quickly enough to cope with the rate of influx of foreign immigrants?

• PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS. Does the rate of appearance of psychological stresses and strains remain below the rate at which they can be absorbed? Example: Do insults, injuries and injustices to children in a particular society cause permanent psychological damage?

Quantification with Biesiot indicators and visualization of the state of viability

Fig. 7. Orientor star using Biesiot indicators: the system is not viable if any of the orientor satisfactions, expressed by the ratio of rate of response to rate of threat, has a value of less than one, i.e., is inside the unit circle.

of existence effectiveness freedom action security adaptability coexistence unit circle

A Biesiot indicator is defined as the ratio of two particular time rates of change of a given quantity: its rate of restoration (or response) and its rate of deterioration (or threat). It can also be defined by the inverse of the two rates, i.e., the time constants of respective processes (respite time vs. response time). The Biesiot ratio is nondimensional; it has the value of unity if both rates are equal. The value one, therefore, marks the critical point: if the rate of response is greater than the rate of threat, the system can handle the particular threat; if it is smaller, system viability is threatened. If Biesiot ratios are used to express basic orientor satisfactions of a system, the corresponding indicators provide a direct measure of viability: viability (and hence sustainability) is threatened if any of the indicators falls below a value of one. The viability state of a system becomes immediately obvious if the values of the respective Biesiot indicators are plotted on the rays of an orientor star (Fig. 7).

4.4. The cyclical nature of system evolution and