Understanding the functional principles of nature—Proposing another type of ecosystem services

Abstract Ecosystem services are usually interpreted as a free of charge “favour” provided to us and our society by nature. In other words, nature supplies us with a functionality that we would otherwise have to pay for. Our cost would be to provide resources either (1) to ensure the necessary inputs to drive our society, or (2) to assist in counteracting, absorbing or remediating unwanted effects that are results of our societal activities. Through ecosystem studies it has been found that a substantial part of the functionality of nature is laid out in all types of components—the compartments of the ecosystems together with the transactional interrelations (flows) and controls between them. Eventually, many so-called indicators have been proposed during the last decades. Such measures are dedicated to tell us about the quality side of ecosystem functionality, e.g. to tell us how well the system performs relatively to a theoretical maximum efficiency possible. As an additional hypothesis, such functions are thought to orient the systems and thus increase through time development, i.e. to be optimised under the given the constraints, through the evolution of the system. Recently is has been pointed out that natural and societal systems share the feature of being complex in their organisation. Meanwhile, it was remarked that societal systems in many ways evolved in opposite direction of how natural evolution would drive an ecosystem. Many philosophers of biology have stated that biological systems posses information and memory functions which improve their long-term capability to survive. This information is believed to be contained in the organisational structures of the system as much as in its gene pool. If we accept such arguments it means that studies of organisation and function of natural systems will provide us with another type of ecosystem services. This would namely give us information about in what direction to drive society in order to achieve a more sustainable system. This paper discusses what measures derived from modern ecosystem theory can possibly be used to study and compare the functionality of the two types of systems. The discussion takes an entrance point in two graphs—one that represents a natural system and one of a socio-economic system. The systems possess similar levels of complexity in terms of number of compartments whereas their connectivities do differ in quantity and quality. The differences between the systems are compared from both a network and a thermodynamic perspective. Indications of the best available options that we have at present, will help to increase our knowledge about and understanding of the systems given. As a main conclusion it is possible to view and treat our society as an ecosystem. This means that it is possible to apply the same measures (indicators) that we use in ecological theory. The idea to use these features is so clear, obvious and at the same time cheap that this option necessarily has to be tried out. It seems a bit surprising that we – from a “natural science point-of-view” – to a certain extent understand natural systems better than socio-economic ones. One major reason is that the latter type includes a large set of regulatory mechanisms that are exerted on a subjective basis as opposed to natural systems. As a consequence societal systems become much more difficult to evaluate, forecast and regulate than ecosystems.

[1]  A. Ludovisi Exergy vs information in ecological successions: Interpreting community changes by a classical thermodynamic approach , 2009 .

[2]  Felix Müller,et al.  Eco Targets, Goal Functions, and Orientors , 1998 .

[3]  Frank Figge,et al.  A framework for assessing the vulnerability of food systems to future shocks , 2005 .

[4]  C. Hall The continuing importance of maximum power , 2004 .

[5]  E. V. van Ierland,et al.  Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: implications for the ecosystem approach. , 2007, Marine pollution bulletin.

[6]  S. Jørgensen,et al.  Towards A Thermodynamic Theory For Ecological Systems , 2004 .

[7]  N. Georgescu-Roegen The Entropy Law and the Economic Process , 1973 .

[8]  K. S. Spiegler,et al.  Principles of desalination , 1966 .

[9]  Unai Pascual,et al.  Developing incentives and economic mechanisms for in situ biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes , 2007 .

[10]  John H. Lienhard,et al.  Entropy: A New World View , 1980 .

[11]  Stephen James Ormerod,et al.  The uptake of applied ecology , 2002 .

[12]  Sergio Ulgiati,et al.  An integrated assessment of energy conversion processes by means of thermodynamic, economic and environmental parameters , 2006 .

[13]  Enrico Sciubba,et al.  Extended exergy accounting applied to energy recovery from waste: The concept of total recycling , 2003 .

[14]  Jeremy Rifkin,et al.  Entropy: A New World View , 1981 .

[15]  Anthony Lehmann,et al.  Information pyramids for informed biodiversity conservation , 2002, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[16]  Inge Røpke,et al.  Trends in the development of ecological economics from the late 1980s to the early 2000s , 2005 .

[17]  M. Rounsevell,et al.  Ecotargets, goal functions and orientors , 1998 .

[18]  Howard T. Odum,et al.  Environment, Power, and Society , 1972 .

[19]  Ibrahim Dincer,et al.  Exergy as a Driver for Achieving Sustainability , 2004 .

[20]  James J. Kay,et al.  Order from Disorder : The Thermodynamics of Complexity in Biology , 2007 .

[21]  Heriberto Cabezas,et al.  Simulated experiments with complex sustainable systems: Ecology and technology , 2005 .

[22]  Cecília M.V.B. Almeida,et al.  Emergetic ternary diagrams: five examples for application in environmental accounting for decision-making , 2007 .

[23]  Andrew Balmford,et al.  Trends in the state of nature and their implications for human well-being. , 2005, Ecology letters.

[24]  D. Pimentel CHAPTER 2 – Complexity of Ecological Systems and Problems in Their Study and Management , 1966 .

[25]  Enrico Sciubba,et al.  Cost analysis of energy conversion systems via a novel resource-based quantifier , 2003 .

[26]  Walter M. Elsasser,et al.  Reflections on a Theory of Organisms: Holism in Biology , 1987 .

[27]  R. Ceulemans,et al.  Entropy increase of fragmented habitats: a sign of human impact? , 2005 .

[28]  C. Folke,et al.  Local Ecological Knowledge and Institutional Dynamics for Ecosystem Management: A Study of Lake Racken Watershed, Sweden , 2001, Ecosystems.

[29]  Felix Müller,et al.  Handbook of ecosystem theories and management , 2000 .

[30]  Hari Eswaran,et al.  Resource management domains : a biophysical unit for assessing and monitoring land quality , 2000 .

[31]  Goran Wall,et al.  On exergy and sustainable developmentPart 2: Indicators and methods , 2001 .

[32]  Wolf Dieter Grossmann,et al.  Realising sustainable development with the information society — the holistic Double Gain-Link approach , 2000 .

[33]  J. Dalsgaard,et al.  Modeling and analyzing the agroecological performance of farms with ECOPATH , 1998 .

[34]  Ilya Prigogine,et al.  Introduction to Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes , 1967 .

[35]  Enrico Sciubba,et al.  From Engineering Economics to Extended Exergy Accounting: A Possible Path from Monetary to Resource‐Based Costing , 2004 .

[36]  Helmut Haberl,et al.  Land use and sustainability indicators. An introduction. , 2004 .

[37]  A J Lotka,et al.  Natural Selection as a Physical Principle. , 1922, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  R. Ulanowicz Ecology, the ascendent perspective , 1997 .

[39]  S. Nielsen What has modern ecosystem theory to offer to cleaner production, industrial ecology and society? The views of an ecologist , 2007 .

[40]  Göran Wall,et al.  ON EXERGETICS, ECONOMICS AND OPTIMIZATION OF TECHNICAL PROCESSES TO MEET ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS , 1997 .

[41]  Bernard C. Patten,et al.  Network Orientors: Steps Toward a Cosmography of Ecosystems: Orientors for Directional Development, Self-Organization, and Autoevolution , 1998 .

[42]  J. Tainter The Collapse of Complex Societies , 1988 .

[43]  Robert E. Ulanowicz,et al.  Process ecology: A transactional worldview , 2006 .

[44]  S. Nielsen Towards an ecosystem semiotics: Some basic aspects for a new research programme , 2007 .

[45]  E. Odum The strategy of ecosystem development. , 1969, Science.

[46]  Howard T. Odum,et al.  A Prosperous Way Down: Principles And Policies , 2001 .

[47]  E. D. Schneider,et al.  Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics , 1994 .

[48]  W. Leontief Quantitative Input and Output Relations in the Economic Systems of the United States , 1936 .

[49]  R. Ulanowicz,et al.  An informational synthesis of ecosystem structure and function , 1997 .

[50]  Cecília M.V.B. Almeida,et al.  A combined tool for environmental scientists and decision makers: ternary diagrams and emergy accounting , 2006 .

[51]  Zhifeng Yang,et al.  Analyses of urban ecosystem based on information entropy , 2006 .

[52]  Joseph A. Tainter,et al.  Supply-Side Sustainability , 2003 .

[53]  Bernard C. Patten,et al.  Energy, emergy and environs , 1992 .

[54]  E. KostShelton,et al.  Growth and development. , 1951, Ciba clinical symposia.

[55]  A. J. Lotka Contribution to the Energetics of Evolution. , 1922, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[56]  P. Auger Dynamics in a hierarchically organized system. Biological examples , 1990 .

[57]  Sven E. Jørgensen,et al.  A New Ecology: Systems Perspective , 2007 .

[58]  H. Eswaran,et al.  Some major developments in soil science since the mid-1960s , 2001 .

[59]  Enrico Sciubba,et al.  Emergy and exergy analyses: Complementary methods or irreducible ideological options? , 2005 .

[60]  P. Glansdorff,et al.  Thermodynamic theory of structure, stability and fluctuations , 1971 .

[61]  Mei Gong,et al.  On exergy and sustainable development—Part 1: Conditions and concepts , 2001 .

[62]  R W Battarbee,et al.  Detecting environmental change: science and society-perspectives on long-term research and monitoring in the 21st century. , 2003, The Science of the total environment.

[63]  N. Theresa Hoagland,et al.  Sustainable systems theory: ecological and other aspects , 2005 .

[64]  H. Bossel Ecosystem and Society: Orientation for Sustainable Development , 1998 .

[65]  Karl Sigmund,et al.  What is life? The next fifty years , 1996, Complex..

[66]  E. Schrödinger What Is Life , 1946 .

[67]  T. Sousa,et al.  Equilibrium econophysics: A unified formalism for neoclassical economics and equilibrium thermodynamics , 2006 .

[68]  S. Jørgensen,et al.  Comparison of exergy found by a classical thermodynamic approach and by the use of the information stored in the genome , 2009 .

[69]  Kenneth E. F. Watt,et al.  Systems Analysis in Ecology , 1967 .

[70]  Robert E. Ulanowicz,et al.  On the consistency between thermodynamical and network approaches to ecosystems , 2000 .

[71]  B. Starzomski,et al.  What does biodiversity actually do? A review for managers and policy makers , 2007, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[72]  Sven Erik Jørgensen,et al.  Exergy as goal function of ecosystems dynamic , 1997 .

[73]  I. Dincer,et al.  A worldwide perspective on energy, environment and sustainable development , 1998 .

[74]  John T. Finn,et al.  Flow analysis of models of the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem. , 1980 .

[75]  T. Sousa,et al.  Is neoclassical microeconomics formally valid? An approach based on an analogy with equilibrium thermodynamics , 2006 .

[76]  Yong Jin,et al.  The ecological perspective in chemical engineering , 2004 .

[77]  S. Jørgensen Integration of Ecosystem Theories: A Pattern , 1994, Ecology & Environment.

[78]  J. Jeffers,et al.  Theoretical Studies of Ecosystems: The Network Perspective , 2009 .

[79]  M. Faber,et al.  Malthus vs. Wordsworth: Perspectives on humankind, nature and economy. A contribution to the history and the foundations of ecological economics , 2005 .

[80]  Ambuj D. Sagar,et al.  Bioenergy and sustainable development , 2007 .

[81]  Simone Bastianoni,et al.  A common framework for emergy and exergy based LCA in accordance with environ theory , 2007 .

[82]  I. Dincer,et al.  Energy, environment and sustainable development , 1999 .

[83]  T. Allen,et al.  Resource Transitions and Energy Gain: Contexts of Organization , 2003 .

[84]  Søren Nielsen,et al.  Thermodynamic Constraints of Life as Downward Causation in Ecosystems , 2009, Cybern. Hum. Knowing.

[85]  Charles A. S. Hall,et al.  Maximum power : the ideas and applications of H.T. Odum , 1996 .

[86]  Ibrahim Dincer,et al.  Exergy: Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development , 2007 .

[87]  Catherine P. Koshland,et al.  Exergy and industrial ecology—Part 1: An exergy-based definition of consumption and a thermodynamic interpretation of ecosystem evolution , 2001 .

[88]  Javier Garcia-Frías,et al.  The expansion of information in ecological systems: Emergence as a quantifiable state , 2006, Ecol. Informatics.

[89]  Ibrahim Dincer,et al.  Thermodynamic aspects of renewables and sustainable development , 2005 .

[90]  Sven Erik Jørgensen,et al.  Emergy, environ, exergy and ecological modelling , 1995 .

[91]  Jamie P. MacDonald,et al.  Strategic sustainable development using the ISO 14001 Standard , 2005 .