Articles

Water-Use Sustainability in
Socioecological Systems: A
Multiscale Integrated Approach

Cristina Madrid, Violeta Cabello, and Mario Giampietro

Human societies and ecosystems use water in different ways and at different scales, which complicates the study of water-use sustainability in
socioecological systems. We present a multiscale integrated assessment of societal and ecosystem metabolism, an innovative approach to the
quantitative analysis of water use that addresses the problem of multiple scales. It builds on the concept of metabolic pattern and the flowfund
model of Georgescu-Roegen. We show how to define water resources and water use (expressed in hourly rates) for socioeconomic systems in
relation to the identities of relevant fund elements (relevant categories of human activity or land use) over a time span of 1year. Similarly, we
define the limits on the human appropriation of water (aggregate withdrawal or damping per year) on the basis of the structural and functional
stability of ecological funds (defined over a much longer time scale) and the related land-use pattern.

Keywords: water metabolism, water-use sustainability, multiscale assessment, socioecosystems, MuSIASEM

W ater scarcity is a socially driven phenomenon, fed by

what Allan (2011) called a deep social delusion
about water that manifests itself as a mismatch between
physical water availability and societal water use. A clear
example of this is the location of intensive-irrigation agri-
cultural land or human settlements in deserts. The physical
availability of water is determined by broadscale natural
dynamics, whereas its use is determined by societal dynam-
ics operating at a much narrower scale. Governance of water
resources also has consequences at various scales (Laborte
et al. 2007). As a result, quantitative analyses based on the
consideration of only a single scale are unlikely to provide
an input for the management of water resources that is
adequate for both natural and social systems.
Several quantitative methods have been proposed to link
societal water use to ecosystem impact. However, none of
these methods explicitly addresses the issue of scale. The
problem is twofold. First, these quantitative methods are
deeply rooted in a reductionist approach to the definition
of water. In fact, water has different meanings for different
actors and scientists in different contexts and levels of analy-
sis. Second, these methods do not bridge the results of the
analyses at different levels.
An integrated assessment of water use should be able
to address the shifting identity of a water mass perceived
differently in different contexts. For example, a typical classi-
fication of water may define it as either blue or green, depend-
ing on its origin (evaporated from surface or groundwater or
stored in the soil as moisture, respectively; Falkenmark 1995).
However, it is doubtful that this characterization (1 cubic
hectometer [hm3] of blue water or 1hm3 of green water) will
always be useful when moving across different contexts and
levels of analysis. For example, if we need to check the num-
ber of jobs created in the paper sector per liter of water used,
the origin of the water is usually not relevant. Yet, the origin
of water is relevant for assessing the impact inflicted on the
ecosystem. Water extracted from ecosystems can certainly be
blue or green, but the potential usefulness of this classifica-
tion will always depend on both the purpose of the analysis
and the final use of this water. Given that social systems can
control only (blue) freshwater, this has traditionally been the
main indicator used to characterize water use within social
systems, and there has been a systemic tendency to ignore
green water.
The theoretical concept of virtual water (Allan 1998),
beyond its operative characterization as the amount of water
needed to produce a good or a service, is a step toward the
adoption of a more flexible definition of water that is able to
connect different perceptions referring to different systems.
In fact, by adopting this concept, one can establish a water

BioScience 63: 1424. ISSN 0006-3568, electronic ISSN 1525-3244. 2013 by American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. Request
permission to photocopy or reproduce article content at the University of California Presss Rights and Permissions Web site at www.ucpressjournals.com/
reprintinfo.asp. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.1.6

14 BioScience January 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 1

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/63/1/14/240858/Water-Use-Sustainability-in-Socioecological
www.biosciencemag.org
by guest
on 24 September 2017
 Articles

Table 1. The different dimensions, issues, and disciplines that need to be interpreted as the possibility of reduc-
addressed in a holistic quantitative analysis of water-use sustainability and ing two distinct scales of analysisthe
the related role of a multiscale integrated analysis of societal and ecosystem distinct scales required to provide use-
metabolism (MuSIASEM). ful representations of ecosystem and
societal processes, for exampleinto a
Ecological Social Socioeconomic Policy
single quantitative representation.
Issues Water resources Human Water withdrawal: Selection of Building on the concepts of self-
(ecological funds) appropriation Water used in the goals, definition organizing dissipative systems (Prigogine
of water economic process of priorities,
(societal flows) evaluation of 1978), autopoiesis (Maturana and Varela
results 1980), and evolutionary theory (Weber
Disciplines Ecology, Earth Engineering, Economics, Political ecology, et al. 1988, Brooks et al. 1989, Depew
sciences agronomy, sociology policy studies,
industrial ecology multiscale science for and Weber 1989), pioneers of theo-
integrated analysis governance retical ecology (Margalef 1968, Odum
Tools MuSIASEM MuSIASEM MuSIASEM Social multicriteria 1971, Ulanowicz 1986) have developed
evaluation
various methodological approaches to
Output Ecological Biophysical Economic Conflict and analyzing, in quantitative terms, the
constraints constraints constraints institutional
analysis analysis analysis analysis patterns of the flow exchange of mat-
ter and energy within ecosystems. The
rationales of self-organization and
nexus among social systems and between natural and social autopoiesis are useful for establishing a set of expected
systems (e.g., the waterfoodtrade nexus; Allan 2003). In relationships between the characteristics of the various
this way, assessments of virtual water are extremely effective parts and subparts and those of the whole ecosystem across
in helping people to understand the impacts that water con- hierarchical levels, as is exemplified by the classic ecological
sumption patterns do generate in ecosystems, be they near representation of trophic structures.
or far from the place of consumption. In a similar line of thinking, the concept of societal
The problem of multiple scales is generated by the need metabolism was introduced in the first half of the twenti-
to transfer information across levels of representation. eth century as a means to study the link between energy
The water flows that are relevant for the sustainability of use and the expression of societal structures and functions
socioecological systems (SESs) can be perceived only at dif- (Zipf 1941, White 1943, Cottrell 1955). Given the growing
ferent spatiotemporal scales. To solve this conundrum, we concern with sustainability, this concept has reemerged in
need a more complex approach to effectively integrating the various forms in the more recent literature (Martinez-Alier
representation of the biophysical, ecological, social, and eco- and Schlpmann 1987, Fischer-Kowalski 1998, Giampietro
nomic aspects of water use, analyzed at different hierarchical etal. 2011). In this case, a set of expected relations between
levels and scales, into one coherent and holistic framework. the characteristics of the parts and those of the whole socio-
We propose as a solution, in this article, the multiscale economic system can also be established when looking at the
integrated analysis of societal and ecosystem metabolism metabolic patterns of societies (Giampietro etal. 2012).
(MuSIASEM), a heuristic method for the integration of the That is, both society and ecosystems can be interpreted
various dimensions, disciplines, and issues involved in such as complex, self-organizing, dissipative systems capable
a holistic quantitative analysis (table1). of stabilizing their own identity by reproducing a defined
metabolic pattern (Giampietro et al. 2011). However, the
Linking the analyses of societal and ecosystem mechanisms and processes involved in the expression of
metabolism their respective metabolic patterns are operating at different
The recent gain in popularity of the notion of SESs under- scales. Therefore, it is impossible to perceive and represent
scores the need for a holistic approach to the analysis of the in quantitative terms the process of the self-organization of
interface between socioeconomic and ecological systems SESs using a single scale and a single quantitative approach.
(Berkes and Folke 1998, Young et al. 2006, De Aranzabal The MuSIASEM approach has been specifically developed
et al. 2008). The basic features of SESs, common to the to deal with this impasse. MuSIASEM makes it possible to
many definitions and interpretations found in the literature, analyze the metabolic pattern of energy and material flows
are that human societies are embedded in the ecological in society and ecosystems using different scales of analysis
processes with which they have strong biophysical ties and and to establish a bridge across these scales in the related
that the socioeconomic system and the ecological system in sustainability assessments (Giampietro etal. 2011, 2012). In
which it is embedded should be considered as one complex the quantitative analysis of the metabolic pattern of societies,
adaptive system, which is expected to express nonlinear we represent energy and material flows across structures and
behavior and, therefore, is difficult to model. functions (e.g., houses, crop fields) on a scale that is different
Although effective in conveying the need for a holistic from the scale used for the analysis of flows across natural
approach, the concept of SESs may be misleading if it is structures and ecological functions (e.g., lakes, aquifers). For

www.biosciencemag.org January 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 1 BioScience 15

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/63/1/14/240858/Water-Use-Sustainability-in-Socioecological
by guest
on 24 September 2017
 Articles

example, humanmade water purification systems can make aspects of the SES and show how it works within the soci-
a volume of water drinkable in hours, whereas the natural ety. This analysis links the overall resource consumption of
water cycle might take months or years to do the same. society (level n) to the resource consumption by the various
Acknowledging that the study of societal and ecosystem functions (at level n 1) and structural elements (level n 2)
metabolism dictates the use of different scales does not of society. Levels n, n+ 1, and n+ 2 describe the functional
mean that the resulting analyses must be necessarily discon- aspects of the SES and show why the water metabolism in
nected. Whenever the same pool of resources is being used society is possible in the first place. This analysis links society
by both human societies and ecosystems, competition for its (level n) to the characteristics of its boundary conditions
use is practically inevitable. In MuSIASEM, we purposefully (level n+ 1) and the processes guaranteeing the stability of
establish a relationship between these two nonequivalent these boundary conditions (level n+ 2).
quantitative analyses, and therefore, a thorough study of the Therefore, to check the sustainability of the metabolic
terms of this competition is warranted. pattern of a society, in MuSIASEM, we use representations
belonging to two nonequivalent descriptive domains so as to
simultaneously assess the desirability of the resource flows
Using hierarchy theory to integrate the metabolic for the maintenance of the societal functions and structures
pattern across multiple scales (internal triadic reading; levels n, n 1, n 2)the view
Hierarchy theory is the branch of complexity theory deal- from the insideand the feasibility of the metabolic pat-
ing with the epistemological implications of multiple scales tern in terms of the compatibility between the structural
(Grene 1969, Pattee 1973, Salthe 1985, Allen and Starr 1988, and functional characteristics of society and the biophysical
ONeill 1989). According to hierarchy theory, the same constraints imposed by the embedding ecosystems (external
system expresses different identities, depending on the triadic reading; levels n, n + 1, n + 2)the view from the
scale at which we observe it. The identity of an observed outside.
system can be defined as each of the researchers percep-
tions of the investigated system as an entity distinct from Two additional epistemological problems in the
its background and from other systems with which it is assessment of water-use sustainability
interacting (Giampietro 2004). Therefore, the identity of There are two additional epistemological predicaments
a system depends on the set of selected relevant qualities plaguing the assessment of water-use sustainability and
(observable attributes) that are chosen
to reflect both the perception and the
representation of the system. n +2 n +1 n n1 n2
Each systems identity has an associ- Water use
by society Consumption
ated descriptive domain, the domain of (life water) Households
reality delimited by the interactions of
Surface
interest (Kampis 1991). This is where (blue water)
Rain
we frame our representation of the
identity of the observed system. The
Agriculture
descriptive domain determines the cor-
responding scale, which is defined as
the extent of the temporal or spatial Effluents Soil
(green water)
boundaries of the description and its
Industry
resolution (or grain). Therefore, the
Percolation
coexistence of multiple scales implies Taken from Production
the unavoidable coexistence of non- ecosystems
(economy
Services
Underground Aquifers
equivalent descriptive domains that transfers (blue water) water)
cannot be reduced to each other with a
formal system of inference (Mandelbrot
1967, Rosen 1985). Triadic reading 1: The external view Triadic reading 2: The internal view
Applying these basic concepts to
the analysis of an SES, we distinguish Figure 1. Hierarchical levels establishing a link between the external and
five hierarchical levels of organization, internal views of societal water metabolism. The semantically open definition
which are represented in figure1 as two of water is shown by the changing role it acquires in the levels of each triadic
contiguous triadic readings. The triadic reading. The labels blue and green water correspond to the waters origin
reading on the right refers to society; (i.e.,evaporated from surface or ground water or stored in the soil as moisture,
the one on the left refers to the embed- respectively). Economy water and life water correspond to the end use that
ding ecosystems. Hierarchical levels n, water is given (i.e., the water used for the economic sectors and the water used
n 1, and n 2 describe the structural for drinking and personal care, respectively; Arrojo 2006).

16 BioScience January 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 1 www.biosciencemag.org

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/63/1/14/240858/Water-Use-Sustainability-in-Socioecological
by guest
on 24 September 2017

limiting the usefulness of conventional quantitative methods
of analysis: (1) how to define a volume of water (the quantity
to be measured) as a legitimate flow belonging to a given
category (e.g., what should be considered drinking water?)
and (2) how to include the external limit represented by
ecosystem integrity in the assessment of the maximum flow
of water that can be used by society.
MuSIASEM employs a semantically open definition of water as a
resource. In relation to the first point, the literature on water
studies abounds with definitions of the chemical compound
water. Depending on the underlying narrative, water is a
public good, a cultural element, a trade nexus, or an ecologi-
cal niche. However, each of these definitions is semantically
closedmeaning that each term has a single fixed definition
that is related to the narrative and one that is restricted to the
scale of the corresponding descriptive domain. Therefore,
if we are to analyze water use across different hierarchical
levels of organization and scales, we must define in non-
equivalent ways what water is and what water does in differ-
ent descriptive domains.
Indeed, Zimmermann (1951) claimed that resources can-
not be defined in substantive terms: Resources are not, they
become (p.15). A certain amount of an element becomes a
resource only when it is able to provide a service to a speci-
fied end user. Therefore, a certain volume of water becomes
a resource only if its characteristics allow it to do so. For
example, for the end use of drinking water, only the volume
of water that possesses the set of attributes required for this
purpose qualifies as water resource. In line with this think-
ing, we employ a semantically open approach in our analysis
in order to give an identity to volumes of water while mov-
ing across hierarchical levels and scales. This means that for
different levels of analysis and different potential end users,
we must expect to find different definitions of water. This
approach allows for a cultural or context-dependent defini-
tion of water resource. For example, in Europe, the water of
the Ganges River would not meet the safety standards for
qualifying as drinking water, but in India, cultural practices
or a lack of alternatives create a different picture.
In the analytical framework of MuSIASEM, the attributes
characterizing a given volume of water as a water resource are
therefore defined by the identity of the structural and func-
tional compartments of society using that water. For example,
the relatively high heat capacity of water (the attribute) and
the need for efficient cooling processes (the end use) define a
given waterflow as a resource for thermal power stations (the
functional or structural compartment). Within the multiscale
analysis, we discover that water resources are used in the pro-
cess of reproduction by societal functional structures (at one
scale), but they are also ecosystem functional structures (at
abroader scale). Therefore, our conceptualization of water
use does not refer to the use of a given quantity of the chemi-
cal element water but to the services that a given volume of
water provides for the maintenance of the metabolic pattern
of observed systems (either a society or an ecosystem).
www.biosciencemag.org January 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 1 BioScience 17
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/63/1/14/240858/Water-Use-Sustainability-in-Socioecological
by guest
on 24 September 2017
Articles
Including ecological integrity in the analysis. In relation to the
second epistemological problem, Aguilera Klink (1995)
proposed that water is an ecosocial asset, because it provides
services not only for socioeconomic systems but also for
ecosystems. Indeed, there is a wide range of ecohydrological
processes that rely on waters presence (Brauman etal. 2007).
As part of these processes, water flows through ecosystems
guarantee the integrity of these systems by maintaining their
structural and functional relationships, from habitat provi-
sion to evapotranspiration. There is no ecosystem on Earth
capable of reproducing itself without using water. Indeed, it
is the pattern of water availability that delimits the boundary
conditions for the maintenance and reproduction of various
ecosystem types.
The water used by ecosystems is often qualitatively trans-
formed (e.g., in terms of its quantity, quality, temperature, or
geographical and temporal reference) in a way that increases
its value for human end uses (e.g., drinking, irrigation,
regulation of flows, hydroelectric power), thus making it a
resource for social purposes. This process allows the provi-
sion of waters ecosystem services (Willaarts et al. 2012).
Therefore, the interaction between the water cycle and
ecosystems contributes to the supply of water resources to
society and is crucial to water-use sustainability.
Georgescu-Roegens flowfund model to frame the
quantitative analysis of water use in MuSIASEM
As was argued above, the simultaneous adoption of non-
equivalent descriptive domains demands the use of seman-
tically open definitions of useful water. For dealing with
these scale issues, Georgescu-Roegen (1971) proposed the
flowfund model for the quantitative analysis of the bio-
physical processes underlying the functioning of a modern
economy. MuSIASEM uses this flowfund model to pro-
vide both a semantic criterion to define the identities of the
elements of the system across scales and a formal criterion
to represent the relationships among them (Giampietro
etal. 2011).
A semantic criterion to define the identity of
elements across scales
In the MuSIASEM approach, fund elements are those ele-
ments of the observed system that remain the same across
the duration of the analysis (the extent of the chosen scale).
They represent what the system is and what the system is
made of. The idea of sustainability implies that these elements
are reproduced in the metabolic process. Flow elements, on
the other hand, are those elements that appear or disappear
over the duration of the analysis (outputs that are generated,
inputs that are consumed). They tell us what the system does
with regard to the interaction with the context (at the large
scale) and that among its internal components (at the local
scale) (Giampietro etal. 2011).
The question of whether a given element, in this case
water, should be classified as a fund or as a flow in the ana-
lytical representation of societal metabolism depends on
 Articles
the chosen scale (i.e., the extent and grain) of the analysis
(Georgescu-Roegen 1971). When the required property of
a given volume of water is compromised during the time
scale of the analysis by its use, it must be considered a flow;
otherwise, it is a fund. Normally, social uses of water belong
to the category flow, because one or more water attributes
are lost in order to create economic value or to maintain
the social funds (e.g., water losing gravitational energy in a
hydroelectric plant, water becoming polluted because of its
use for cleaning, water evaporating or percolating away after
irrigation). However, there are rare cases in which water can
be considered a fund for social systems, such as ponds and
artificial lakes used for cultural or recreational purposes.
Given that the distinction between fund and flow is seman-
tic, the same water volume can be perceived as a fund or as
a flow depending on the attributes and scale considered. For
example, a volume of water drawn from a river for irriga-
tion is a flow that explains what the agricultural system of
a society does (narrow scale). On the contrary, the water of
that same river is a fund that expresses the identity of a lotic
ecosystem (broad scale). This semantic ambiguity in the defi-
nition of fund and flow elements makes it possible to study
the competition for the use of water between the two systems.
Indeed, in the analysis of the metabolic pattern of ecosystems,
the predictable flow regime of water in a river is a fund for
the ecosystem that needs that water to express the ecosystems
functions and preserve its biodiversity. A stable identity of
the ecological fund elements (e.g.,rivers, lakes, aquifers) does
require a regulation of the input (e.g.,affluents) in relation to
the output (e.g., effluents). At the global scale, this regulation
is enforced by the water cycle in its interaction with ecosys-
tems. It determines the set of ecological water funds from
which humans can derive their water flows.
Formal criteria and quantitative indicators to represent expected
relationships between flows and funds. The relationship
between flows and funds has to be defined in qualitative and
quantitative terms. In relation to the qualitative aspects, the
flowfund model indicates that in any metabolic system,
the identity of a flow depends on its end use, which is fund
specific. This expected relationship determines which water
flows are admissible in the accounting. For example, drinking
water (flow) for humans (fund) must satisfy certain criteria
(e.g., the absence of toxic substances and harmful micro
organisms) and so must irrigation water (flow) for crop
plants (socioeconomic fund elements; e.g., salinity level).
In relation to the quantitative aspects, the nature of
metabolic systems allows us to define admissible values
for the flow:fund ratios that will guarantee the survival or
reproduction of the fund elements included in the analysis
(e.g., humans, plants, rivers). For example, humans must
consume, on average, about 2 liters of drinking water per
day per personnot much more and not much less; differ-
ent types of crops require different quantities of irrigation
water per hectare; a freshwater ecosystem in a river needs a
minimum flow of water going through it.
18 BioScience January 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 1 www.biosciencemag.org
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/63/1/14/240858/Water-Use-Sustainability-in-Socioecological
by guest
on 24 September 2017
Therefore, a sound analysis of water-use sustainability
requires us to make informed preanalytical choices of rel-
evant qualitative semantic attributes (e.g., what we mean by
economically cheap water) and related formal quantita-
tive attributes (e.g., the cost of 1cubic meter [m3] of water
expressed in a given currency) to be used as indicators that
will make it possible to properly track qualitative and quan-
titative changes in the flow and fund elements within a given
metabolic pattern. Indeed, within the analytical framework
of MuSIASEM, sustainability is closely related to the main-
tenance of the characteristics of the water flows within their
admissible ranges (qualitative check) and the flow:fund ratios
within the viable and feasible limits (quantitative check). A
flow extraction should not cause a permanent reduction
(i.e., a quantitative change) in or damage (i.e.,aqualitative
change) to the fund elements that it feeds.
Therefore, the flowfund model allows us to visualize,
quantify, and explain the nonequivalent roles that water
plays in the metabolic pattern of society and ecosystems
across scales and, therefore, to better explore the nexus
and competition between socioeconomic and ecological
processes.
Making the flowfund model operational within MuSIASEM. The
preanalytical choice of defining a given volume of water as
either a flow or a fund determines the selection of the indi-
cators of water use that will be included in our MuSIASEM.
These indicators consist of a system of measurable bench-
marks that are able to characterize changes in the relevant
system structures and functions. For the indicators to be
defined, we must therefore properly identify the fund ele-
ments that describe the end uses of water and the semantic
qualitative criteria that delineate what kind of water should
be considered a water resource to those ends. The identifica-
tion of these criteria allows us to assign relevant semantic
attributes to the flow elements. The formal quantitative
criteria that define how much water is needed for stabilizing
the societal and ecological metabolic patterns and that thus
allow us to establish the relative size of the fund elements
in the form of indicators, such as hours of human activity
devoted to maintain a certain social function or cultivated
area, should also be identified.
With all this said, the preanalytical choice of qualitative
criteria, attributes, and indicators obviously depend on the
purpose of the study and the specific characteristics of the
investigated SES.
In figure 2, we give an example of how to proceed with
these preanalytical choices using a multicriteria approach.
Here, an integrated set of criteria, semantic attributes, and
quantitative indicators of water-use sustainability is shown
in the form of a radar diagram organized around two
perpendicular axes. To the left of the vertical axis, we have
information about the metabolic pattern of the embed-
ding ecosystems; to the right, we have information about
the metabolic pattern of the socioeconomic system. Above
the horizontal axis, we have the qualitative aspect of the
 Articles

Figure 2. Definition of a set of formal attributes and indicators in the preanalytical step of a multiscale integrated analysis
of water-use sustainability. The location in the radar indicates the desirability of the situation.

analysis (the choice of attributes and indicators); below it is
the quantitative aspect (the resulting assessment of quanti-
ties). The indicators shown have been assigned a value (the
black squares in the radar diagram) and a related meaning
(depending on its position in the viability domain: The fur-
ther from the center it is, the better its performance is).
In the lower part of figure2, we see that the preanalytical
definition of fund elements (either human activity on the
right or water bodies on the left) allows us to formalize the
considered situation in quantitative terms. For instance, in
thisexample, we see that water withdrawal from rivers is
excessive (the indicator shows a negative effect on this fund
element), water use by the residential sector satisfies the needs,
and the agricultural sector has plenty of water for irrigation.
In this particular example (figure2), the value taken on by
the various indicators is characterized according to the flag
model (Gomiero and Giampietro 2005). In this model, for
each one of the chosen attributes, we select an indicator or
proxy variable (e.g., for the semantic attribute nutrient concen-
tration, we select the formal attribute nitrogen concentration)
and define the related viability domain (the minimum or
maximum acceptable values) and a range of desirable values,
represented here by the different gray circles at the center.
As a result, we test the desirability of the actual supply of
water flows in relation to the various end uses in a society
(a check on the internal constraints) in qualitative (upper
part) and quantitative terms (lower part). The feasibility of
this metabolic pattern of water use in relation to the external
constraints imposed by the ecosystem metabolism can be
verified by assessing the impact of water withdrawal (defined
in quantity and quality) by society on the stability of the
ecological funds. This integrated characterization is useful
for studying whether human water withdrawal compromises
the integrity of the ecosystem.
For the water used in the economic process, the attributes
defining its role as an input flow are determined by preferences
and regulations set by social institutions (such as laws or market
transactions). Because water is used in different economic sec-
tors and within these sectors for many different purposes and
functions, it is often impossible to define in substantive terms
its optimal use, even when considering only societal meta
bolism. The consideration of water as a resource for ecosystems
hinders a consensus on it even more, because it is virtually
impossible to achieve full agreement on the quantification of
the biophysical limits of water appropriation by society, on
thedamage that human water use causes, or on the desirability
of the preservation of the identity (i.e., the key characteristics)
of ecological funds (e.g., lakes, rivers, aquifers).
Therefore, a proper multicriteria frame, as is shown in
figure 2, requires us to carefully go through the following

www.biosciencemag.org January 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 1 BioScience 19

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/63/1/14/240858/Water-Use-Sustainability-in-Socioecological
by guest
on 24 September 2017
 Articles

steps: selection of relevant criteria, identification of relevant
attributes, choice of indicators, gathering of data, defini-
tion of viability and desirability, evaluation of trade-offs,
and iteration of the whole process to increase its qual-
ity (Nijkamp et al. 1990, Vincke 1992, Allen et al. 2003).
Carrying out this kind of analysis in a technocratic way by
experts alone is not possible. The effort requires participatory
approaches to handle the unavoidable presence of legitimate
but contrasting perceptions and of large doses of uncertainty
in relation to the quantitative representation (Funtowicz and
Ravetz 1990, Checkland and Scholes 1999, Munda 2008).
A bridge between nonequivalent representations of
water metabolism on different scales
We show here the steps of constructing a multiscale inte-
grated assessment of the water metabolism of SESs on the
basis of two nonequivalent representations of the metabolic
pattern of water at two different scales: societal metabolism
and ecosystem metabolism.
Adopting the small scale: The water metabolism of society seen
from the inside. In figure 3, we bring in focus the water
metabolism of society, adopting the internal view. The data
presented refer to the Catalonia region of Spain in 2007. This
view corresponds to a socioeconomic taxonomy of relevant
fund and flow categories for the accounting. The time span
of this representation is 1year (extent), and the resolution
(grain) for the analysis of flows across fund elements is
1hour.
The total water appropriated by society (at level n) is
extracted from water funds and amounts to 2956 hm3
per year. This indicator is useful for studying the compat-
ibility between internal and external constraints because
it lies on the interface of the internal and external triadic
reading. This same volume of water can also be expressed,
within the internal triadic reading, as a rate of water use of
51liters (L) per hour of human activity per year (equiva-
lent to 1224L per capita per day); this is the flow sustaining
the human population.
To establish a relationship between the overall flow of water
at level n and the water flows at lower levels n i, we map the
water flows onto the fund element human activity. This fund
element provides the structural frame of our assessment of the
internal view. It serves this purpose well, because a structural
and functional subdivision of society on the basis of human
activity corresponds accurately to the various socioeconomic

Figure 3. The internal view: Water withdrawal and use in the Catalonia region of Spain in 2007 by economic sectors.
The data are from water-use surveys of the Spanish National Statistics Institute. Abbreviations: AGR, agriculture;
HH, households; hm3, cubic hectometers; IND, industry; L, liters; m3, cubic meters; PW, paid work; SG, services and
government. The economic productivity of labor is represented in black. The water-use rate is in gray.

20 BioScience January 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 1 www.biosciencemag.org

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/63/1/14/240858/Water-Use-Sustainability-in-Socioecological
by guest
on 24 September 2017

end uses of water. In our example (figure3), the total number
of hours of human activity per year of the whole society are
split between the household sector and the paid work sector
at level n 1. The human activity in the paid work sector is
then further divided at level n 2 among the agricultural,
industrial, and service and government sectors. The empirical
data of figure3 show that the total flow of water use is largely
determined by the water use in the paid work sector and only
marginally affected by the household sector. Of the paid work
sector, the agricultural sector accounts for the lions share
more than 70% of the total water use. This representation of
the societal water metabolism is focused on the direct uses
of water under human control and is therefore limited to the
withdrawal of water from superficial and subterranean water,
the reuse of water, and water from desalination.
As part of this internal view, we can also simultaneously
assess flows of water and money (defined over the same
fund elements) so as to provide information on the eco-
nomic performance of water flows. This latter indicator is an
essential piece of information for a holistic assessment of the
water metabolism of SESs and for economic policymaking.
In figure4, which shows the metabolic pattern of water use
in Catalonia for the period of 20002008, we illustrate how
to obtain this information. On the vertical axis, we have the
water-use rate (in m3 per hour of human activity), and on
the horizontal axis is the economic labor productivity (in
euros []) of gross value added per hour of human activity).
We see here again that water resources are used at markedly
different rates by the various economic sectors (be aware that
the graph has a logarithmic scale). We also see that the sector
with the highest hourly water-use rate (agriculture) has the
lowest economic productivity per hour. Indeed, the economic
100
Water-use rate (cubic meters per hour)
10
1 amount of water appropriated by humans, rather than
0.1
0.01
0.001
0 5
Economic productivity of labor (gross value added, per hour)
HH CAT AGR
Figure 4. Metabolic performance of different societal
functions in the Catalonia region of Spain in 2007. The
data are from water-use surveys of the Spanish National
Statistics Institute. Abbreviations: AGR, agriculture;
CAT, the entire Catalonia region; HH, households; IND,
industry; PW, paid work; SG, services and government.
www.biosciencemag.org
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/63/1/14/240858/Water-Use-Sustainability-in-Socioecological
by guest
on 24 September 2017
Articles
performance of water use in the agriculture sector is a mere
1 /m3, whereas the industrial and service and government
sectors reach values of, respectively, 224 and 916 /m3 (also
see figure 3). Note that the water resources used by the
various economic sectors shown are defined in different ways.
Forinstance, water used at the household level has different
attributes from water used in the agricultural sector.
Adopting the large scale: View of society interacting with the
embedding ecosystems. The price to pay for seeing the
dynamics of the water metabolism within the society (the
internal socioeconomic perception) is the adoption of a
scale that does not allow us to see the water dynamics of the
embedding ecosystems or the relationship between the local
ecosystems and the larger water cycle.
In figure 5, we focus on the water metabolism of the
ecosystems embedding society, adopting the external triadic
reading (also see figure 1). Ecological fund elements, such
as lakes, rivers, and aquifers, form the structural and func-
tional compartments of the ecological processes operating
at levels n + i. Accordingly, in this representation, water
volumes are mapped and accounted for in spatial terms
(instead of in hours of human activity). The time extent
of this representation is necessarily much broader than
1yearfrom decades to thousands of years, depending on
the type of ecosystem under analysisand it is required to
define a stable identity of the ecological funds. Therefore,
the temporal resolution (grain) of the analysis of ecosystem
metabolism must also be much higher than the one used
for the analysis of societal metabolism. In order to establish
an interface between the two quantitative analyses and their
corresponding scales, we set the resolution for the analy-
sis of ecosystem metabolism at 1 year so that it matches
the extent of the analysis of societal metabolism. In this
way,the total amount of water required or used by society
in 1 year (defined at level n, the interface; see figures 1, 3,
and 5) can be represented at the larger scale as an appro-
priation rate from ecological fund elements (figure5).
On this larger scale, we prefer to define water use as the
simply as the amount of water withdrawn (figure5). This
is to emphasize the analogy with the concept of human
appropriation of net primary productivity suggested by
Vitousek and colleagues (1986). Indeed, human appro-
priation of water from the fund elements of the ecosystem
may have serious consequences on the water cycle at the
larger scale if it destabilizes the integrity of local ecosys-
10 15 20 25 30
tems (e.g., extensive deforestation, severe river decline).
PW IND SG
The stabilization of favorable boundary conditions for
the expression of both societal and ecosystem metabolism
ultimately depends on the global water cycle. The global
water cycle is essential for the regulation of the tempera-
ture on Earth and for the stabilization of aquifers, rivers,
lakes, and seas. It is undoubtedly one of the most impor-
tant metabolic patterns expressed by our planet. Indeed,
the maintenance of the water cycle requires a huge flow
January 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 1 BioScience 21
 Articles

Figure 5. The external view: The effects of the human appropriation of water in Catalonia in 2007 over the Ebro Basin and
the Internal Basins of Catalonia (CIC). The data are from water surveys of the Spanish National Statistics Institute and
the Catalan Water Agency. The white arrows represent the water use for refrigeration. Abbreviations: AGR, agriculture;
HH, households; hm3, cubic hectometers; IND, industry; popul., population; SG, services and government. A darker color
indicates the waters loss of an ability to provide services. The water cycle renews the water resources that arrive to the
ecological funds.

of energy44,000 terawatts (TW), or one-third of the
total solar energy reaching Earth (Taube 1985)to keep in
motion and to thereby recover the water resources degraded
by the social system. This quantity is 2750 times the total
amount of energy controlled by humankind in 2010, which
was around 16TW, or 504exajoules per year (BP 2012). This
enormous difference between the amount of energy used
by nature for the water cycle and that used (i.e., controlled)
by societies for their own metabolism explains why the vast
majority of the processes determining the supply of fresh-
water for societal uses are beyond direct human control. In
fact, only desalination and water treatment for reuse take
place within the metabolic pattern of society. Nonetheless,
because of their huge energy and capital cost, these activities
account for only a negligible fraction of the water consumed
by society.
How bridging scales can make a difference. The gap between the
time horizons at which we are able to visualize the effects of
water use on the economy (the shorter horizon) and on the
embedding ecosystems (the longer horizon) often makes it
difficult to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of policies
with a national or regional scope having influence on water
use. An analysis of the relationships between the water funds
providing the identity of the ecological systems (figure5) and
the water flows used by society (figure 3) can be extremely
helpful in this regard.
We illustrate this with an example from vegetable fac-
tory greenhouses located close to the Tabernas Desert in
the province of Almeria, in southern Spain. In this area, the
high percentage of agricultural lands irrigated with ground-
water (around 80%; Consejera de Agricultura y Pesca 2011)
is a consequence of the low average rainfall in the region
(around 190 millimeters per year; AEMET 2012). A short-
term, technical analysis of water use as a productive factor
has led local greenhouse producers and managers in Almeria
to achieve the highest efficiency in irrigation in Europe
(Contreras 2002). However, the long-term effect of this
technological improvement has been shown to be a classic
case of the Jevons paradox (Polimeni etal. 2008): In the case

22 BioScience January 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 1 www.biosciencemag.org

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/63/1/14/240858/Water-Use-Sustainability-in-Socioecological
by guest
on 24 September 2017

of Almeria, it has indeed led to a rapid expansion of green-
houses in the region and a concomitant increase in total
water use with disastrous effects for local water funds and
ecosystems. The enhanced economic performance of water
use in agriculture has marginalized its role in reproducing
ecosystem funds (i.e., ecological structures and functions)
with the result that, now, most of the rivers and aquifers in
that region are declared to be in a situation of risk under
the regulations of the European Water Framework Directive
(see supplemental material, available online at http://dx.doi.
org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.1.6).
The MuSIASEM approach can help avoid a situation
like the one in Almeria by bridging the two scales men-
tioned. This means that the flows of water use in society are
mapped against relevant categories of land uses in addition
to relevant categories of human activity. Given that water
availability has a quite fixed geographical reference, the
geographical link between the water funds and water flows
provided by the analysis of the land-use patterns becomes
crucial in avoiding such situations. Within the MuSIASEM
approach, we can distinguish between the natural landcover,
which uses water as a fund, and the human-driven land uses,
in which human colonization defines the role of water as a
flow. The study of the bridged triadic readings proposed here
would have shown the unsustainability of the increment on
irrigation land for greenhouse production and would have
led to policy advice against this option.
Conclusions
The analysis of the metabolic pattern of water allows us
to handle nonequivalent definitions of water as a resource
for the reproduction of socioeconomic fund elements and
ecosystem fund elements. The chemical element water
per se does not possess any attributes that permit us to
define its usefulness for either society or ecosystems. It is the
definition of water as becoming a resource in relation to
a specified end use that makes it possible to describe a set of
expected characteristics for water flows for different types
of autopoietic processes. By adopting this approach, the
qualitative and cultural aspects of societies can be included
in the definition of water resources and, for that reason, in
the quantitative assessment of water use.
An integrated quantitative characterization of the pros
and cons of water use should always address the societal
metabolic pattern and the corresponding desirability of
societal water use: How and why is a society using water (as
a flow element) inside the economic process? The ecosystem
metabolic pattern and the corresponding viability of societal
water use must be addressed: How and why do the embed-
ding ecosystems (as fund elements) and other biophysical
conditions impose external constraints on the societal use
of water?
These two metabolic patterns must be studied at differ-
ent scales. When water is considered as a resource for soci-
ety (a flow element used to reproduce societal funds), the
attributes of performance defining its quality depend on
www.biosciencemag.org January 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 1 BioScience 23
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/63/1/14/240858/Water-Use-Sustainability-in-Socioecological
by guest
on 24 September 2017
Articles
the functions or end uses that are essential or desirable for
society. The resulting quantitative analysis corresponds to
a descriptive domain with a time span of 1 year (because
of statistical constraints) and a grain of 1 hour. However,
when water is considered as a resource for ecosystems (a
fund needed for guaranteeing the stability of ecosystem
metabolism), the preservation of the identity (i.e., the key
characteristics) of the ecological funds (e.g., lakes, rivers,
aquifers) is the criterion that determines the biophysi-
cal limits to water appropriation by society. The resulting
quantitative analysis corresponds to a descriptive domain
with amuch larger time span (e.g., decades, centuries) and
a grain of 1year.
An integrated analysis of SESs necessarily employs indi-
cators that are defined across nonequivalent descriptive
domains. As a consequence, we cannot rely on reduction-
ist models and protocols (of the one-size-fits-all variety).
We have to adopt semantically open procedures and tailor
our quantitative analysis to our purpose and the specific
characteristics of both the social and the ecological systems
under study.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Sandra Bukkens for her excellent
editing job and to Jess Ramos-Martn and three anony-
mous reviewers for their useful comments. This research has
been funded by the Agency for Management of University
and Research Grants of the Government of Catalonia
(grant nos. SGR2009-594 and SGR2009-600), the Catalan
Reference Network on Economics and Public Policies, and
the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Formacin
de Profesorado Universitario program). Mario Giampietro
acknowledges the support of the Stellenbosch Institute for
Advanced Study to the program.
References cited
[AEMET] Agencia Estatal de Meteorologa. 2012. Valores climatolgicos
normales: Almera aeropuerto. AEMET. (1 October 2012; www.aemet.
es/es/serviciosclimaticos/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=
6325O&k=and)
Aguilera Klink F. 1995. El agua como activo econmico, social y ambiental.
El Campo 132: 1527.
Allan JA. 1998. Virtual water: A strategic resource: Global solutions to
regional deficits. Ground Water 36: 545546.
. 2003. Virtual waterThe water, food, and trade nexus: Useful con-
cept or misleading metaphor? Water International 28: 106113.
. 2011. Virtual Water: Tackling the Threat to Our Planets Most
Precious Resource. I.B. Tauris.
Allen TFH, Starr TB. 1988. Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity.
University of Chicago Press.
Allen TFH, Tainter JA, Hoekstra TW. 2003. Supply-Side Sustainability.
Columbia University Press.
Arrojo P. 2006. El Reto tico de la Nueva Cultura del Agua: Funciones,
Valores y Derechos en Juego. Paids Estado y Sociedad no. 139.
Paids.
Berkes F, Folke C. 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management
Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge
University Press.
[BP] British Petroleum. 2012. 2011 in Review. BP. (2 October 2012; www.bp.
com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037128&contentId=7068555)
 Articles
Brauman KA, Daily GC, Duarte TK, Mooney HA. 2007. The nature and
value of ecosystem services: An overview highlighting hydrologic ser-
vices. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32: 6798.
Brooks DR, Collier J, Maurer BA, Smith JDH, Wiley EO. 1989. Entropy and
information in evolving biological systems. Biology and Philosophy 4:
407432.
Checkland P, Scholes J. 1999. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley.
Consejera de Agricultura y Pesca. 2011. Inventario de Regados 2008 y Su
Evolucin en la ltima Dcada. Junta de Andaluca, Spain.
Contreras S. 2002. Los regados intensivos del Campo de Dalas (Almera). Odum EP. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd ed. Saunders.
Pages 151192 in Fernandez J, Selma MAE, eds. Agua, Regado y
Sostenibilidad en el Sudeste Ibrico. Bakeaz.
Cottrell F. 1955. Energy and Society: The Relation Between Energy, Social
Change, and Economic Development. McGraw-Hill.
De Aranzabal I, Schmitz MF, Aguilera P, Pineda FD. 2008. Modelling of
landscape changes derived from the dynamics of socio-ecological sys-
tems: A case of study in a semiarid Mediterranean landscape. Ecological
Indicators 8: 672685.
Depew DJ, Weber BH, eds. 1989. Evolution at a Crossroads: The New
Biology and the New Philosophy of Science. MIT Press.
Falkenmark M. 1995. Land-water linkages: A synopsis. Pages 1516 in Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Land and
Water Integration and River Basin Management. FAO.
Fischer-Kowalski M. 1998. Societys metabolism. Journal of Industrial
Ecology 2: 6178.
Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. 1990. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for
Policy. Springer.
Georgescu-Roegen N. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process.
Harvard University Press.
Giampietro M. 2004. Multi-scale Integrated Analysis of Agroecosystems.
CRC Press.
Giampietro M, Mayumi K, Sorman AH. 2011. The Metabolic Pattern of
Societies: Where Economists Fall Short. Routledge.
. 2012. Energy Analysis for a Sustainable Future: The Multi-scale
Integrated Analysis of Societal and Ecosystem Metabolism. Routledge.
Gomiero T, Giampietro M. 2005. Graphic tools for data representation in
integrated analysis of farming systems. International Journal of Global
Environmental Issues 5: 264301.
Grene M. 1969. Hierarchy: One word, how many concepts? Pages 5658
in Whyte LL, Wilson AG, Wilson D, eds. Hierarchical Structures:
Proceedings. Elsevier.
Kampis G. 1991. Self-Modifying Systems in Biology and Cognitive Science: A
New Framework for Dynamics, Information, and Complexity. Pergamon.
Laborte AG, Van Ittersum MK, Van den Berg MM. 2007. Multi-scale analysis
of agricultural development: A modelling approach for Ilocos Norte,
Philippines. Agricultural Systems 94: 862873.
Mandelbrot B. 1967. How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self-
similarity and fractional dimension. Science 156: 636638.
Margalef R. 1968. Perspectives in Ecological Theory. University of Chicago
Press.
Martinez-Alier J, Schlpmann K. 1987. Ecological Economics: Energy,
Environment, and Society. Basil Blackwell.
24 BioScience January 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 1
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/63/1/14/240858/Water-Use-Sustainability-in-Socioecological
by guest
on 24 September 2017
Maturana HR, Varela FG. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization
of the Living. Springer.
Munda G. 2008. Social Multi-criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy.
Springer.
Nijkamp P, Rietveld P, Voogd H. 1990. Multicriteria Evaluation in Physical
Planning. North-Holland.
ONeill RV. 1989. Perspectives in hierarchy and scale. Pages 140156
in Roughgarden J, McCredie May R, Levin SA, eds. Perspectives in
Ecological Theory. Princeton University Press.
Pattee HH. 1973. Hierarchy Theory: The Challenge of Complex Systems.
Braziller.
Polimeni JM, Mayumi K, Giampietro M, Alcott B. 2008. The Jevons Paradox
and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements. Earthscan.
Prigogine I. 1978. Time, structure, and fluctuations. Science 201:
777785.
Rosen R. 1985. Anticipatory Systems: Philosophical, Mathematical, and
Methodological Foundations. Pergamon.
Salthe SN. 1985. Evolving Hierarchical Systems: Their Structure and
Representation. Columbia University Press.
Taube M. 1985. Evolution of Matter and Energy on a Cosmic and Planetary
Scale. Springer.
Ulanowicz RE. 1986. Growth and Development: Ecosystems Phenomenology.
Springer.
Vincke P. 1992. Multicriteria Decision-Aid. Wiley.
Vitousek PM, Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH, Matson PA. 1986. Human appropria-
tion of the products of photosynthesis. BioScience 36: 368373.
Weber BH, DePew DJ, Smith JD, eds. 1988. Entropy, Information, and
Evolution: New Perspective on Physical and Biological Evolution. MIT
Press.
White LA. 1943. Energy and the evolution of culture. American
Anthropologist 45: 335356.
Willaarts BA, Volk M, Aguilera PA. 2012. Assessing the ecosystem ser-
vices supplied by freshwater flows in Mediterranean agroecosystems.
Agricultural Water Management 105: 2131.
Young OR, Berkhout F, Gallopin GC, Janssen MA, Ostrom E, van der Leeuw
S. 2006. The globalization of socio-ecological systems: An agenda for
scientific research. Global Environmental Change 16: 304316.
Zimmermann EW. 1951. World Resources and Industries: A Functional
Appraisal of the Availability of Agricultural and Industrial Materials.
Harper.
Zipf GK. 1941. National Unity and Disunity: The Nation as a Bio-Social
Organism. Principia.
Cristina Madrid (cristina.madrid.lopez@gmail.com) and Mario Giampietro
are affiliated with the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology
at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain. Mario Giampietros
primary affiliation is with the Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced
Studies (ICREA). Violeta Cabello is affiliated with the Department of Human
Geography at the University of Seville, Spain.
www.biosciencemag.org