Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the United Kingdom
Fridolin Krausmann 1 *, Heinz Schandl 2 and Rolf Peter Sieferle 3
1
Institute for Social Ecology, University of Klagenfurt, Austria
2
CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra, Australia
3
Department of History, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
Email address of corresponding author:
[email protected]
Key Words: Socio-ecological regime, transition, social metabolism, industrialization, energy
use, land use, labour
Published as:
Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime
transitions in Austria and the United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi:
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
2
Abstract
We employ the concepts of socio-ecological regime and regime transition to better understand
the biophysical causes and consequences of industrialization. For two case studies, the United
Kingdom and Austria we describe two steps in a major transition from an agrarian to an
industrial socio-ecological regime and the resulting consequences for energy use, land use and
labour organization. In a first step, the coal based industrial regime co-existed with an
agricultural sector remaining within the bounds of the old regime. In a second step, the
oil/electricity based industrial regime, agriculture was integrated into the new pattern and the
socio-ecological transition had been completed. Industrialization offers an answer to the input
and growth related sustainability problems of the agrarian regime but creates new
sustainability problems of a larger scale. While today’s industrial societies are stabilizing their
resource use albeit at an unsustainable level large parts of the global society are in midst of
the old industrial transition. This poses severe problems for global sustainability.
1. Introduction
Industrialization is an ongoing and global process. Starting from England in the 18th century
it took place in most parts of Europe and the United States during the 19th Century and since
has spread worldwide affecting every country and region, albeit, to a highly varying extent. In
socio-economic terms it is a process characterized by large scale, machine-assisted production
of goods and services by a concentrated, usually urban labour force. The process is signified
by technological change, spatial concentration and a declining economic significance of the
agricultural sector. In this way, industrialization appears as a process of continuous increases
in labour productivity and energy efficiency as well as growing industrial output resulting in
continuous economic growth. Besides impelling social change and creating material wealth it
has fundamentally changed the human domination of the Earth’s ecosystems and brought
along a plethora of environmental problems (McNeill, 2000).
A major claim of ecological economics is to broaden our understanding of economic
processes and how they are embedded in nature by taking a biophysical perspective which
conceptualizes economic processes also as natural processes in the sense that they can be seen
as biological, physical and chemical processes (Ropke 2005, see also Wackernagel 1999). In
this context, an historical understanding of the long term development of society-nature
interactions is of vital importance (Martinez-Alier and Schandl 2002, De Vries and
Goudsblom, 2002; Costanza et al., 2007; Martinez-Alier, 1987).
We aim to complement the dominant socio-economic and socio-technical view on
industrialization as a gradual process of continuous growth and technological change
(Grübler, 1998; Maddison, 2001) by introducing a socio-ecological perspective focussing on
changes in society-nature relations. We understand the industrialization process as a
qualitative transition which transforms the agrarian socio-ecological regime into an industrial
regime thereby establishing a distinct and fundamentally new pattern of society-nature
interaction and material and energy use (Fischer-Kowalski and Haberl, 1997 and 2007; De
Vries and Goudsblom, 2002).
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
3
Our analysis focuses on the changing relationship between the energy system, land use and
human labour which allows for major upward shifts in the physical limits to growth
(Martinez-Alier, 1987). We conceptualize industrialization as a stepwise process of
decoupling the supply of energy from land related biomass and from human labour on the
land. This has caused a shift in society’s energy strategy away from tapping into flows of
renewable energy towards the exploitation of large but nevertheless finite stocks of fossil
energy. Even though this has allowed societies to overcome traditional limits to growth
inherent in the agrarian socio-ecological regime, it has created new kinds of sustainability
problems and environmental impacts associated with socio-economic activities.
This paper draws on a database covering the long term historical development of biophysical
society-nature interactions to explore changing relations of land use, material and energy
flows, population and economic growth. We base our insights into the socio-ecological
transition on two empirical case studies: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern)
Ireland (UK), the pioneer of industrialization, and Austria, often considered a typical
European late comer in this process. We discuss the fundamental limitations on growth
inherent in the agrarian socio-ecological regime. By adopting a comparative view on the two
cases, we outline two phases in the transition from an agrarian to an industrial socioecological regime. We draw some conclusions about the universal character of this transition
process and the implications this has for global sustainability.
2. Methods and Data
Time series data was compiled covering biophysical variables including land use, material
and energy flows (i.e. domestic extraction, imports and exports) as well as socio-economic
variables (GDP and population). National scale data is available in annual resolution for the
period 1830 to 2000. For selected points in time the data base includes similar data for
different spatial scales (rural regions and urban centres). The datasets employ standard
methods for energy and material flow accounting (see Haberl, 2001; Schandl et al., 2002) and
are thus based on a systemic approach. For the reconstruction of annual material and energy
flows we used historical statistics and land surveys published for the UK and Austria since the
early 19th Century. For stocks and flows not covered by statistics (e.g. grazed biomass, used
crop residues) we conducted modelling and estimation procedures. For a full description of
the data-set see previous publications and reports (Krausmann et al., 2003a and b; Krausmann
and Haberl, 2002 and 2007; Krausmann, 2001b; Schandl and Krausmann, 2007; Schandl and
Schulz, 2002a and b). For an in-depth discussion of the industrial transformation see Sieferle
et al. (2006) and the global aspects of the metabolic transition Fischer-Kowalski and Haberl
(2007).
Empirical data presented in this paper largely refer to energy flows and land use. In
accounting for socio-economic energy flows we use the accounting framework proposed by
Haberl (2001) and extend the common notion of primary energy of standard energy statistics
(e.g. OECD/IEA/Eurostat, 2005) by including all types of biomass appropriated by human
society. In doing so, we broaden the scope for energy accounting from technical energy (fossil
fuels, hydro and nuclear power and fuel wood) to biomass used to produce food for humans
and feed for livestock and biomass for non-energetic use.1
1
The inclusion of non energetic use of energy rich materials is consistent with the definition of primary energy
in energy statistics, which considers e.g. petroleum products for non energy use as part of primary energy
(OECD/IEA/Eurostat, 2005).
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
4
To take a broader view of primary energy is crucial for the analysis of energy flows in
agrarian societies because biomass constitutes the primary source of energy not only for the
provision of heat but also for human and animal work. All quantitative information on energy
use refers to apparent consumption of primary energy (i.e. domestic energy consumption,
DEC), calculated by adding-up domestic extraction and imports and subtracting exports. The
accounts include all energy rich materials and other primary energy types, namely
hydropower and nuclear heat. Unless otherwise noted, energy is reported in terms of gross
calorific value (upper heating value). Data reported in statistics in mass were converted into
calorific values by applying material specific conversion factors.
The collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire after World War I resulted in major changes in
the territorial boundaries of Austria. As this paper focuses on the relation of energy and land,
these territorial changes impose major distortions. Therefore, data presented for Austria
always refers to Austria as defined by its current boundaries (see Sieferle et al. 2006).
3. The agrarian socio-ecological regime
We begin with a discussion of the biophysical characteristics of the agrarian socio-ecological
regime. The basic feature of the agrarian regime is the controlled solar energy system
(Sieferle et al. 2006). In this regime, provision of primary energy is almost exclusively based
on land use. Biomass accounts for more than 95% of primary energy supply, while water and
wind power, and in some cases also coal, only play a minor quantitative role. In general, these
energy sources account for no more than a few percent of primary energy supply, although
their economic importance may have been significant in certain areas. In the agrarian socioecological regime, agriculture is the core of the socio-economic energy system and the main
“energy providing” activity. To meet this function, an agrarian population invests labour to
cultivate land and to produce primary energy for the nutrition of humans and draught animals
(Figure 1a), and for the provision of process and low temperature heat. A positive energy
yield of agriculture is then the basic requirement for sustainability (Simmons, 1989).2 In the
agrarian socio-ecological regime, the majority of the population lived on and from the land.
But the land use system also fuelled a non-agricultural part of the overall social system, by
providing food, feed, fuel and industrial material (fibres, leather, bones, potassium, dyestuff
etc.) for the non-agricultural sector in urban centres (Figure 1a). The availability of productive
land in combination with land and labour productivity determined the overall availability of
primary energy while the ability of agriculture to produce surplus determined the possible size
of the non-agrarian population and production.
Agrarian societies tap into renewable flows of energy, a potentially sustainable practice, a
necessary but not sufficient condition for sustainability (see below). Agrarian regimes are by
no means static. Via optimisation of land use and increases in the efficiency of biomass
conversion societies which are biophysically based on a controlled solar energy system have
the ability to grow (Boserup, 1965). Growth, in general, is population driven and results in
absolute growth (more of the same) but is paid for by stable or rather declining per capita
2
In advanced Central European land use systems of the early 19th Century an energetic return upon investment
(i.e., external energy inputs per unit of (food) energy output) of 5 or more has been estimated (see Leach, 1976;
Stanhill, 1984; Cusso et al., 2005; Krausmann, 2004). That means, that per Joule of invested labour (measured in
food equivalent) an energy output of 5 or more Joules of final energy (i.e. food) is achieved.
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
5
availability of primary energy (in combination with efficiency increases). Ultimately,
however, growth in the agrarian regime is limited.
Figure 1. The changing relation of energy, land and labour during the stages of the socio-ecological transition.
Energy flows in (a) the agrarian socio-ecological regime, (b) the coal phase of industrialization, (c) the mature
industrial socio-ecological regime.
1a) In the agrarian socio-ecological regime humans invest labour to cultivate land. By obtaining a net gain of
useful energy, they can meet their own demands for food, feed and wood and that of an, albeit, small nonagricultural population and production system. The size of the (energy) surplus determines the size of the non
agricultural system. 1b) The exploitation of coal stocks allows for a massive growth of the non agricultural
system. Industrial production requires large amounts of human and animal labour and is linked to nonagricultural population growth. Agriculture receives hardly any inputs form the non agricultural sector and the
growing demand for food and feed is met by an optimisation of traditional low input agriculture (or in the case if
the UK by food imports). 1c) Oil and electricity driven technology facilitate mass production and mass
consumption. Trade both of biomass and fossil fuels gains importance. Production in agriculture and industry is
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
6
increasingly decoupled from human labour and massive energy subsidies for agriculture allow for tremendous
increase in agricultural output and labour productivity. In the new regime the relation between the agricultural
and the non agricultural production system is reversed. The non agricultural system fuels agricultural production.
Agriculture under pre-industrial conditions is a low input system. Soil fertility and long term
stability of yields have to be maintained on the basis of locally available resources (e.g.
labour, manure) and ecosystem services (e.g. natural regeneration rates), external inputs are
not available. The local resource endowment in combination with a more or less complex
system of labour organisation (mode of agricultural production) determines the productivity.
This includes land use that is not uniform in spatial and temporal terms, the local combination
of extractive and intensive land use types, transfers and recycling of nutrients (see Loomis and
Connor, 1992; Netting, 1993; Cusso et al., 2005). According to natural conditions, population
density and land use technology, a large variation of land use systems with differing capacity
to provide energy and raw materials are possible (Boserup, 1965; Grigg, 1987). Increases in
output usually go hand in hand with an increasing demand for labour, with the consequence
that growth under pre-industrial conditions usually means declining per capita consumption of
primary energy. An agrarian society featuring continuous growth inevitably approaches
natural limits.
The actual limits of physical growth are difficult to determine, but we can make some
estimates of the energy potential of advanced European agricultural land use systems. From
detailed case studies of local agricultural production systems we assume that pre-industrial
land use systems in Europe, usually rain fed cereal cultivation systems in combination with
livestock in temperate climates, allow for a maximum annual energy yield of 30-40 GJ/ha.3
On a local level, assuming optimal soil and climatic conditions, significantly higher biomass
yields may be achieved. However, this average takes into account large scale and long term
averages of mixed land use systems under highly variable temporal and spatial conditions, i.e.
the suitability for cultivation of land differs largely at the regional level and annual climatic
variations result in a high variability of biomass yields. Based on an average annual per capita
turnover of primary energy of 40-70 GJ4 and an energy yield of 30-40 GJ/ha a maximum
population density of around 75 people per km² (corresponding to an area requirement of 1.3
ha/cap) may be achieved.5 Energy availability also determines the size and structure of socioeconomic material flows. We estimate, that overall material use in advanced agrarian societies
typically amounts to 5-6 t/cap, biomass accounting for more than 80%.6
3
This estimate of the energy potential of pre-industrial agriculture is based on the following assumptions which
match well with land use patterns and biomass yields in 19th Century Europe: We assume that on a large scale
75% of the land area can be used for biomass production; of this area 50% allow for intensive cultivation
(intensive cropland or grassland) at an average annual biomass yield of 80 GJ/ha (4-5 t dry matter), the rest is
used more or less for resource extraction: 25% of the land remain woodlands with an average yield of 40 GJ/ha
(4 scm of wood) and 25% are used as extensive pasture at a yield of 20 GJ/ha (1 t dry matter). This amounts to a
maximum of 40 GJ per ha total area, equal to a biomass yield of roughly two to three tons dry matter per ha and
year. This is much lower than the biological productivity of the natural vegetation in temperate climate which is
around 180 GJ per ha and year (aboveground NPP): By interfering with ecosystem processes traditional land use
technologies (with the exception of irrigation) reduce biological productivity but increase the output of biomass
types of high socio-economic usability (Krausmann, 2001a).
4
Malanima (2002) and Simmons (1989) arrive at similar estimates.
5
This figure corresponds well with Esther Boserup’s (1965) threshold of 65 persons per km² (or 1.5 ha / capita)
between highly intensive agrarian and urban-industrial systems. Under different climatic conditions, land use
systems and patterns of biomass use (i.e. low significance of livestock and vegetable based diet) annual biomass
turnover per person may be as low as 20 GJ. If we assume higher productivity under climate with a longer
vegetation period this may allow for much larger population densities (up to 150). This is typical for rice based
land use systems in south-east Asia and has been shown for e.g. for pre-industrial Japan (own estimates based on
Japanese historical statistics) and the Philippines (Kastner 2007).
6
Agrarian societies under temperate conditions (i.e. with rainfed cereal production and a high significance of
livestock) use between 3 and 7 tons of biomass per capita and year. The most important fraction of nonPublished as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
7
Exploiting renewable resources, the agrarian socio-ecological regime has a potential for
sustainability. If sustainability problems do exist in agrarian societies, they are input related.
Resource scarcity, often temporarily induced by adverse climatic conditions, and the
overexploitation of renewable resources, which may lead to ecosystem degradation and
scarcity related health problems, are the most pressing threats (see e.g. Kjaergaard 1994).
Output related problems (pollution) are of minor and only local significance (Sieferle, 2003).
Growth is possible within a certain range and has to be combined with optimisation of the
land use systems and efficiency increases, otherwise agrarian social systems may collapse
(Tainter, 1988; Costanza et al. 2007).
4. The first wave of growth and transformation
The transition from an agrarian into an industrial socio-ecological regime is commonly
regarded as having started in the UK and from there spread worldwide. As early as in the 17th
Century, key features of the UK’s agrarian socio-ecological regime began to transcend the
typical pattern. Advances in land and labour productivity allowed increases in agricultural
output and greater surplus and facilitated the growth of a non-agricultural urban population.
Under the conditions of vast deforestation (the share of woodlands was reduced to 3% by
1800) and extreme scarcity of wood, coal was increasingly used. Coal provided an energy
substitute for fuel wood essential for the concentrated energy demand needed to build-up and
maintain urban infrastructures and to supply urban populations with heat. By 1700, the
agricultural population in the UK was as low as 50% and the share of coal in primary energy
supply around 15% (400 kg/cap). In the late 18th Century, the use of coal accelerated because
of the diffusion of new technologies namely the steam engine and coal based iron production
(Grübler, 1998; Smil, 1991). According to our estimate, in the early 19th Century energy use
in the UK amounted to 60-70 GJ/cap/year. The share of coal in total energy supply was
roughly 50%, and firewood was of minor significance (less than 5%). Agricultural biomass
accounted for 45% of primary energy supply, see Figure 2 and Table 1.
Quite surprisingly, energy use per capita in Austria in 1830 was about the same level as in the
UK. Contrary to the UK, however, coal was not of any quantitative importance (less than
1%), while firewood accounted for 50% and agricultural biomass similarly for 35 GJ/cap or
45% of primary energy supply.7 The differences in the energy system of Austria and the UK
in the early 19th Century become even more evident if we compare energy use per unit of
renewable materials were sand, stones and bricks for construction which we estimate at 1 t/cap and year and
some minerals of minor quantitative importance such as marl or ores (up to 0.2 t each). Based on Sieferle et al.,
2006.
7
The similar level of per capita energy use in Austria and the United Kingdom is a product of a number of
different factors: Above all, the territorial system boundaries play an important role: While the UK includes the
less industrialized but densely populated Ireland, Austria refers to the territory of current Austria which at that
time was the most advanced and heavily industrialized region within the Monarchy. In 1830, iron production in
Austria amounted to 13 kg/cap as compared to 29 in the UK (Table 1) and consumed a large amount of
firewood and charcoal. Setting the system boundaries differently, therefore, would yield another picture: Energy
use per capita in Great Britain alone amounted to 90 GJ/cap compared to 40 GJ per capita in the Austrian (i.e.
Cisleithanian) part of the monarchy or 66 GJ/cap on the current Austrian territory. In addition to these distortions
caused by system boundaries, also consumption patterns may have some influence: Less favourable climatic
conditions (cold winters with temperatures below 0) paired with high (local) availability of wood (0,4 ha of
woodlands per capita in Austria vs. 0,02 ha/cap in the UK) result in a higher energy consumption for fuel wood
especially in rural households (70-75% of total) in Austria.
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
8
land area (Figure 2, note the different scale of the two countries). In both economies the use of
biomass amounted to roughly 30 GJ/ha and was, according to our estimate presented above,
roughly at the limit of the renewable energy potential of the agrarian socio-ecological regime.
In the UK, the use of coal almost doubled energy supply per unit of area to about 50 GJ/ha (or
60 GJ/ha in Great Britain) indicating that the UK had already surpassed the boundaries of the
agrarian socio-ecological regime.
Table 1. The United Kingdom (1a) and Austria (1b) in 1750, 1830, 1870, 1910, 1950 and 2000: selected
variables
1a) United Kingdom
[cap/km²]
Population density
[intl $/cap]
GDP/cap
Agricultural population [% of total]
[GJ/cap.yr]
DEC/cap
[GJ/ha.yr]
DEC/area
[% of total]
Share of biomass
[kg/cap.yr]
Coal consumption
Iron/Steel production [kg/cap.yr]
[kg/ha.yr]
Cereal yield
[vh/1000 cap]
Motorization
1750
1830
1870
1910
1950
2000
34
1,478
54
63
19
81
417
n.D.
1,200
76
1,779
28
68
52
54
1,100
29
2,000
99
3,205
16
122
122
26
3,175
194
1,980
143
4,611
8
148
212
19
4,505
226
1,980
2
210
6,827
5
153
321
15
4,101
327
2,250
65
247
19,890
1
189
468
12
921
198
7,500
438
1750
1830
1870
1910
1950
2000
32
1,106
n.D
n.D
n.D
n.D
n.D
n.D
n.D
42
1,378
75
73
31
99
8
13
910
53
1,863
46
78
41
86
357
40
1,250
79
3,290
36
89
70
46
1,612
83
1,470
0
83
3,706
22
89
74
47
1,045
137
1,550
13
97
20,149
3
197
191
29
600
808
6,000
524
1b) Austria
[cap/km²]
Population density
[intl $/cap]
GDP/cap
Agricultural population [% of total]
[GJ/cap.yr]
DEC/cap
[GJ/ha.yr]
DEC/area
[% of total]
Share of biomass
[kg/cap.yr]
Coal consumption
Iron/Steel production [kg/cap.yr]
[kg/ha.yr]
Cereal yield
[vh/1000 cap]
Motorization
DEC…Primary energy use (domestic energy consumption); GDP…Gross domestic product in international
Geary Khamis Dollars; vh/1000 cap…vehicles per 1000 inhabitants
Sources: own calculations based on Maddison 2001 (GDP); Mitchell 2003 (motorization, iron and steel); Sieferle
et al. 2006 (DEC, Share of biomass, coal consumption, cereal yields).
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
9
Figure 2. Primary energy use per unit of land area in the United Kingdom and Austria, 1830-2000
Source: Krausmann and Haberl 2007; Schandl and Krausmann 2007; Sieferle et al. 2006
225
[GJ/cap.yr]
150
75
1995
1980
1965
1950
1935
1920
1905
1890
1875
1860
1845
1830
0
Figure 3. Primary energy use per capita in the United Kingdom and Austria, 1830-2000
Source: Krausmann and Haberl 2007; Schandl and Krausmann 2007; Sieferle et al. 2006
From the 1820s onwards, the metabolic transition gained momentum in both countries, a
process linked to the emergence and diffusion of the iron-steam engine-railroad complex.8 In
the UK, by 1910, coal had reached a share of 80% of total energy supply and energy use per
capita had doubled to 150 GJ; energy use per area had grown fourfold to 200 GJ/ha (Figure 2
and 3). In Austria, too, the use of coal accelerated, but the development was less pronounced.
After 1850, when the newly opened railroad lines connected Austria to coal mines in the
8
For a discussion of technological issues see Grübler (1998) and Ayres (1990a and b); see also Ayres and van
den Bergh (2005) for a discussion of the fossil fuel growth engine and its implications for physical growth.
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
10
northern provinces, coal consumption grew rapidly reaching 50% of energy supply by 1900
(Figure 2). Coal was predominantly used as fuel for urban households and in certain
industries. Due to the high availability of wood in rural areas, and the forest endowment of
iron producing regions, wood continued to be an important primary energy source for the
provision of heat well into the second half of the 19th Century. In Austria, energy use per
capita increased by only 20% between 1830 and 1910, while energy use per hectare more than
doubled and reached 70 GJ/ha (Table 1). The remarkable differences in per capita energy use
between Austria and the UK at the beginning of the 20th Century can be largely explained by
differences in the size of the industrial sector and reflect the dominant role of the UK in the
world economy. Around 1910, for example, pig iron production in the UK had reached 226
kg/cap but only 80 kg/cap in Austria (Table 1). A large share of commodities produced in the
UK were exported, contributing to a high domestic energy consumption.
Sieferle (1982, 2001) has coined the term subterranean forest for the large stocks of fossilised
biomass, the exploitation of which provided the energetic basis for physical growth during the
industrial revolution (Figure 1b). The shift to mining the subterranean forests instead of
harvesting real woodlands was a first step in the decoupling of energy provision from the use
of land and the consequent abolishment of the inherent limits to growth and the need for
spatial differentiation of the land based energy system. The magnitude of this process was
impressive and can best be illustrated by a simple calculation of the “size” of the subterranean
forest that was exploited by 1900. The amount of coal burnt at the beginning of the 20th
Century can be translated into a certain amount of firewood equal to coal supply in terms of
its energy content. We express the firewood in terms of a hypothetical forest area, by applying
an average value for sustainable wood yield.9 The size of the subterranean forest exploited by
the UK exceeded the size of the country’s actual territory in the 1850s and by 1900 an
additional forest three times as large as the UK would have been required to meet the
country’s demand for heat. In Austria, this development was less pronounced, but even here
the subterranean forest roughly reached the size of the actual territory in the early 20th
Century (Figure 4).
The increase in energy availability achieved by large scale coal use clearly abolished a
number of basic limitations for physical growth inherent in the agrarian socio-ecological
regime. Firewood, an energy carrier of limited availability, low energy density and prohibitive
transport costs could be replaced by an energy carrier with high energy density and available
in large amounts. The new technologies of energy conversion and rail transport facilitated
industrial production and allowed for spatial concentration and differentiation. Energy
consumption grew tremendously. However, growth was still largely a matter of the industrial
sector and the size of per capita energy use was determined by the size of energy intensive
industries and the transportation network. The increase in energy availability due to coal
hardly contributed to a growing energy availability in households and direct energy
consumption by final users did not increase much.
9
We assume that one ha of woodland, on the basis of sustainable forestry, yielded about 5 solid cubic meters
(scm) of wood per year. This is a rather optimistic assumption, average wood yields probably were closer to 3
scm/ha during the 19th Century. One scm of wood is equivalent to 0.5 t dry matter with an energy content of 10
GJ. One ton of coal with an energy content of 30 GJ is equivalent to 3 scm of fuel wood or 0.6 ha of woodland.
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
11
"subterranean forest" [% of territory]
900%
United Kingdom
600%
300%
Austria
1995
1980
1965
1950
1935
1920
1905
1890
1875
1860
1845
1830
0%
Figure 4. The subterranean forest: Domestic consumption of fossil fuels in woodland equivalent (presented as
percent of national territory).
Source: Krausmann et al. 2003b and Sieferle et al. 2006
Our calculations have shown that the large scale use of coal contributed to a decoupling of
energy provision from land use. However, coal did not allow for a complete decoupling,
because major segments of the socio-economic energy system remained land based
throughout the coal phase of the socio-ecological transition (Figure 1b). Initially, coal helped
to decouple the supply of space and process heat from the availability of woodlands and wood
harvest. With the diffusion of the steam engine, coal could increasingly be used to provide
mechanical power, thitherto confined to human and animal labour and to water or wind
power. The steam engine was the basis for industrial production and rail transport, but it could
only be employed for a limited number of mechanical processes requiring large amounts of
power. Still, most of the downstream manufacturing processes of industry required large
quantities of human labour. Every newly installed steam engine allowed for increases in
industrial output, but, despite radical augmentations in labour productivity (Grübler 1998),
also increased the absolute demand for human labour.
Similar effects have been observed for rail transport. The growing network of railroads
drastically reduced costs of overland transport and boosted transport volume both in terms of
goods and passengers. Nonetheless, with an average density of up to 100 m of railroads per
km² the railroad network was still a rather coarse web of lines and throughout the 19th
Century transport to and from railroad stations required draught animals. Railroads, therefore,
did not substitute for cart transport so with growing transport volume the need for draught
animals also grew.10
Indeed, coal powered industrialization was systematically linked to a growing demand for
human and animal labour and population growth and consequently contributed to a growing
demand for food and feed which had to be met by agriculture (cf. Figure 1b). Agriculture, in
turn, hardly received any energy subsidies from the coal based industrial system, but, by and
10
In Germany, the number of draught animals only began to decline during the first half of the 20th century
(Sieferle 1982).
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
12
large, remained a low-input – low-output system within the tight biophysical constraints of
the agrarian socio-ecological regime. The maintenance of soil fertility and stable yields were
based on internal physical resources, regeneration rates and required a certain spatial
organisation of land use11. Temporal and spatial land use rotations and the multifunctional use
of livestock remained an integral part of the production system. The most essential
confinement for increasing food output was the agricultural nutrient cycle. Despite growing
deliveries of biomass (and essential plant nutrients) to urban-industrial centres, agricultural
nutrient management had to rely on internal transfers, recycling and natural regeneration
potentials.
Population growth and an ever increasing demand for food and animal feed in combination
with the persistence of agriculture within the confines of the agrarian socio-ecological regime
emerged as a severe bottleneck for continued physical growth during the coal based period of
industrialization.12 This phenomenon was recognized and heavily debated throughout the 19th
Century (Malthus, 1798; Ricardo 1817; Liebig, 1865) and considerable efforts were taken to
alleviate the problem. Among the most prominent solutions to raise agricultural yields were
efforts to increase the return of essential plant nutrients from cities to agriculture (night soil
recycling) and increasingly the exploitation of non-renewable nutrient stocks provided by
Guano or Chile saltpetre (see Footnote 11).
As outlined above, the land use system under the conditions of the agrarian socio-ecological
regime was far from static and the scope to optimise the land use system, to improve
efficiency and to increase food and feed output was significant. In Austria, as in most other
late industrializing economies, the capacity for traditional agricultural modernization to
increase output was not fully exploited when industrialization accelerated. The Austrian
agricultural production system of the early 19th Century was still largely based on the
traditional three course rotation system, with 15% of the cropland fallowed every year and
animals largely kept on pastures during the vegetation period. With a growing demand for
agricultural produce, the potential for a further optimisation of the traditional land use system
could be realized (Table 2).
New crops, above all leguminous fodder crops, potatoes and corn were gradually included
into new crop rotations and traditional fallow was abolished. The new crops raised the
availability of fodder and allowed more livestock, improved feed supply and extended stall
feeding. These measures improved the availability of manure and did, in combination with the
nitrogen enriching effect of leguminous crops, significantly enhance the nutrient supply on
cropland (Chorley 1981). The shift to more labour intensive land use practices was largely
compensated for by increasing employment of draught animals and more efficient iron tools.
11
Industrial tools made of iron and reduced transport costs for bulk material were among the few exceptions
where agriculture physically profited from the coal based energy system. The employment of coal powered
machinery and the application of mineral fertilizers such as Guano never gained large scale importance but
remained restricted to specific niches and regions. According to Smil, 2001, global nitrogen production in the
form of guano and mineral nitrates reached 240.000 t by 1900. If we assume that 50% of this nitrogen was
shipped to the UK and that another 50% were applied to cultivated soils this translates into merely 3 kg of
nitrogen per ha of intensively used agricultural land (compared to 20-30 supplied by leguminous plants, see also
Chorley (1981)). Doubtless, this was significant for some production niches in advanced economies, but it does
not constitute an area wide solution, and not for all industrializing economies.
12
This argument only applies to the densely populated European countries, which did not have any new lands or
frontier regions available for further colonization (except for their overseas colonies). The New World
industrializing countries and also Russia were in a different situation and were able to expand agriculture into
vast hinterlands with fertile soils.
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
13
The optimisation of agricultural production allowed almost a doubling of food output in
Austria between 1830 and 1910, although the agricultural labour force remained more or less
constant during this period. That is, increases in output were directly contributing to growing
surplus and were available for non-agricultural households. By and large, in Austria increases
in food production kept pace with population growth during the 19th Century (cf. Table 2,
Figure 6b).
Table 2. Agricultural modernization in Austria 1830-1910
Livestock (livestock
units, LSU)
Draught animals
Cropland
Leguminous crops
Fallow
Nitrogen input
Agric. Labour force
Food output
[1000 LSU]
[1000]
[km²]
[km²]
[km²]
[1000 t]
[1000]
[PJ]
1830
1,440
1870
1,970
1890
2,295
1910
2,650
554
20,391
1,086
3,140
50
n.D.
13,6
661
19,395
1,487
2,030
61
1,518
17
740
19,986
1,783
1,904
74
1,519
21,4
733
20,206
2,026
650
89
1,340
24,3
Source: Sieferle et al. 2006
The UK faced a dramatically different situation in the early 19th Century: with respect to the
possibility for optimisation of the land use system it had anticipated a process later followed
by other industrializing nations. Much of the physical growth of the UK since the 16th
century was based on agricultural improvements including institutional change, the enclosure
movement, the introduction of new crop rotation and agricultural specialization (Overton,
1996). Early growth of the urban population was only possible due to sweeping changes in the
institutional and technical organization of land use. By the mid 19th Century, however, it
seems that the potential for further improvement of land use efficiency and yields was
approaching its limits. This is difficult to prove directly, but it is indirectly evident in the
development of crop yields: Between 1750 and 1830, UK cereal yields grew from 1.2 t per ha
to around 2 t per ha (Table 1). Such high yield was twice the level found in Austria at that
time and significantly higher than cereal yields in most other central European countries. In
comparison, yields in Austria grew by more than 60% during the 19th Century and reached a
level of 75% of the yields obtained in the UK by the early 20th Century (Table 1). Yields in
the UK fluctuated around the high level reached by 1830/50 and did not increase further (even
though agricultural adaptation continued and cropland was increasingly confined to land with
optimum conditions for cereal cultivation). It seems highly plausible that by 1850 the UK
agricultural system had reached the limits of agricultural modernization within the traditional
solar based system.
However, between 1830 and 1910 population density in the UK doubled from 76 to 143
persons per km² (Table 1). As a result, the persistently growing demand for food and feed
could not be met by the domestic agricultural system. Because of stagnating output and
growing population, the domestic production of cereals declined from 6 GJ/cap in 1830 to less
than 3 GJ/cap in 1910 (Figure 5a). Net food output fell below 2 GJ/cap far below the average
physiological demand of at least 3.5 GJ/cap year. The only way out of the mismatch between
agricultural production and home demand was to open international markets. In 1846, the
corn laws were abolished and the political goal of self sufficiency was abandoned. Based on
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
14
its economic and political hegemony, the UK could rapidly decouple food and feed supply
from domestic land availability. Food was imported in growing quantities, first from Prussia
and Russia and since the development of iron sailing boats and later steam ships increasingly
from the United States (see also Hornborg et al. 2007; Hornborg, 2006; Pomeranz, 2000).
5a
5b
8
100
Domestic production
75
[1000 km²]
[GJ nutritive value / capita]
Domestic cropland
6
4
2
50
25
Food imports
Area equivalent of imports
0
1910
1900
1890
1880
1870
1860
1850
1840
1830
1910
1900
1890
1880
1870
1860
1850
1840
1830
0
Figure 5. 5a) Production and imports of food to the UK: 5b) Cropland and area equivalent of food imports to the
UK.
Source: own calculations based on Krausmann et al. 2003b and Sieferle et al. 2006
These regions were endowed with vast quantities of land and gradually expanded crop
production into newly cultivated areas with fertile soils. Around 1890, British cereal imports
surpassed the amount of domestic production and import dependency of staple foods grew to
60% (Figure 5a). By 1900, the area-equivalent of imported cereals reached a level similar to
the domestically available cropland (Figure 5b). Clearly, the large scale of imports had a
significant impact on domestic agriculture and more and more cropland in the UK was taken
out of production or converted into grassland; between 1870 and 1905 the amount of cropland
in the UK shrank by 20% (Figure 5b).
The shift in food supply from home production to import in the UK has to be understood as an
integral part of the decoupling of the energy system from – in this case domestic – land use.
However, the British approach did not provide a path around the agricultural bottleneck for
use by late comers and could not provide a means for persistent growth of global
industrialization.13 The bottleneck of traditional agriculture was dissolved only in the next
phase of the metabolic transition.
13
Additionally, the high food surplus of the New World agriculture was probably not sustainable in the long run.
It has been shown that the newly cultivated lands in the US Mid West were gradually impoverishing and yields
began to decline by the end of the 19th Century (Cunfer, 2005).
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
15
5. The second wave of growth after WWII
The coal phase of the socio-ecological transition was characterized by a coexistence of new
and old socio-ecological patterns: urban industrial centres fuelled by coal and with a high
domestic energy consumption, interconnected by a network of railroads embedded in a largely
rural matrix that was only to a limited extent affected by the metabolic consequences of the
coal based energy system. The rural area maintained many characteristics of the agrarian
socio-ecological regime. At the end of the 19th Century the decoupling of energy provision
and land use had progressed but it was not yet completed; above all, agriculture and animate
power continued to be important elements of the socio-economic energy system. The first half
of the 20th Century, the heavy engineering period of industrialization (Grübler 1998), was
characterised by economic and political instability. Energy use went up and down and
fluctuated around a level of 140 GJ/cap in the UK and 80 GJ/cap in Austria (Figure 3). In
absolute terms, domestic energy supply continued to grow in both economies.14
Already in the first decades of the new century a new dynamic of growth emerged which fully
prevailed only after World War II. The decades after the war were characterized by the
establishment of a new pattern of energy use, very distinct in terms of structure and level from
the coal phase of industrialization. The period from 1950 to 1973 showed a rapid rise in per
capita energy use which grew by 123% in Austria and 54% in the UK to a reach a level of
around 200 GJ/capita in both economies (Figure 3). At the same time coal was displaced by
oil and later natural gas (see Figure 2); both are energy carriers with an even higher energy
density and easy to transport once a network of pipelines is established. By the early 1970s,
the use of coal in the UK had declined by 40% compared to the pre-war years. Currently only
28 GJ of coal per capita are used in the UK and 17 GJ/cap in Austria, most of it in electricity
plants and the iron industry.
A shift from coal to new energy carriers and the diffusion of a bundle of technological
innovations, namely the petroleum-steel-auto cluster combined with electricity (Ayres 1990 a
and b, Grübler 1998), characterized the next phase of the socio-ecological transition. This
phase started in the 1930s in the US and arrived in Europe only after World War II. Steam
engines were quickly replaced as prime movers by internal combustion engines and electric
motors, and electricity greatly enhanced the flexibility of energy use. These new technologies
did not appear as deus ex machina. They were developed and available much earlier but only
adopted after the War in Europe. A main driving force for this development was the decline of
relative energy prices (Pfister, 2003; Smil, 2003) which was enhanced by massive efforts by
the state: including infrastructure projects such as road construction programmes, area-wide
electrification and the implementation of the “green plan” to industrialize agriculture (Grübler
1998). The increasingly narrow woven web of transport infrastructure (from 100 m/km² for
railroads to 1000-2000 m/km² for roads) was of particular importance for the area-wide
penetration of the new regime and resulted in a surge of transport volume in terms of both
persons and goods. Mass production and declining energy prices turned pre-war luxury goods,
such as the automobile or many electrical appliances, into household “necessities”, leading to
mass consumption.
14
The actual dynamics of physical development and energy use and role of different influential factors during
this period are difficult to assess and would require a more detailed analysis: The slow down of growth might be
attributed to the distortions caused by the two World Wars and the economic crisis, or to saturation effects of a
maturing coal based energy system superimposed by the emergence of a new phase of the socio-ecological
transformation (Grübler 1998, Ayres 1990 a and b).
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
16
6a
6b
20000
180
Artificial fertilizer
Gross food output
Person(equivalents) [mio]
120
90
60
12000
8000
Population
4000
Leguminous crops
Net food output
1995
1980
1965
1950
1935
1920
1905
1890
1875
1995
1980
1965
1950
1935
1920
1905
1890
1875
1860
1845
1830
1860
0
0
1845
30
16000
1830
Nitrogen [1000 t]
150
Figure 6. Agricultural modernization in Austria: 6a) Nitrogen input from leguminous crops and artificial
fertilizer; 6b) Population and food production in person equivalents.
The sharp decline in fertilizer input (6a) since the early 1980s is related to sweeping changes in Austrian
agricultural policy (incl. the introduction of a fertilizer tax) and the subsidy system which aimed at reducing
overproduction and resulted in structural changes in Austrian agriculture. 6b) Food production (measured in GJ
nutritive value) was converted into person equivalents assuming an average annual food demand of 4.5 GJ per
person. The gross value takes into account the output of all edible plant based biomass. Net food output is
considerably smaller (in particular since the 1930s), because a large share of edible biomass is used to feed
livestock and converted into animal based food.
Source: Krausmann 2004, Sieferle et al. 2006.
In contrast to earlier periods, this phase was characterized by massive increases in direct
energy consumption by final consumers due to the implementation of energy consuming
technologies such as central heating, electrical household appliances and the use of the
automobile in practically all households. Transport and households currently each account for
roughly 30% of total technical final energy use in both countries, while the share of industry
decreased from 50 to 25% (IEA, 2004). This period of mass production and mass
consumption (Grübler 1998) was made possible by large-scale institutional change including
contra-cyclical investment and unemployment payments by the state and a significant rise in
the share of wages in overall GDP allowing for stabilizing domestic demand (Lutz, 1984).
This permitted a change in the basic economic orientation of households where austerity was
replaced by consumerism, a phenomenon termed 1950s Syndrome by the environmental
historian Pfister (2003). This new institutional set-up and the according resource use patterns
mark the next phase of the socio-ecological transformation characterized by a steep increase
in per capita energy use in Austria and in the UK between 1950 and the mid 1970s (Figure 3),
above all caused by transport and household consumption. In addition to the shift in energy
carriers and a surge in per capita energy use two processes were responsible for the
completion of the transition of the socio-ecological regime: the industrialization of agriculture
and the decoupling of production from animate power.
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
17
Table 3. The industrialization of Austrian agriculture 1950-2000
Tractors
Draught animals
Fertilizer
Agric. labour force
Cereal yield
Food output
[1000]
[1000]
[kg/ha]
[1000]
[kg/ha]
[PJ]
1935
1
590
8
1269
1630
34
1960
147
206
67
776
2357
46
1980
335
30
140
290
4339
78
2000
336
0
85
150
5721
75
Source: Sieferle et al. 2006
The industrialisation of agriculture further contributed to the decoupling of land use and
energy provision. Finally, the above mentioned technologies allowed for large scale energy
subsidies for agricultural production. Mechanisation and agrochemicals made possible a
tremendous increase in area and labour productivity in agriculture and the traditional limits to
growth no longer existed (Grigg, 1992). Table 3 and Figure 6 illustrate this process for
Austrian agriculture.15 Mechanisation eliminated animal power and largely substituted human
labour. Between 1950 and 1980 draught animals disappeared and up to 25% of the
agricultural area required to provide feed for animals became disposable for food production
or other purposes. In the same period, human labour in agriculture was reduced by 75% while
the installed power per unit of land increased by a factor 20 due to the increased use of
agricultural machinery.
Chemical fertilizers, above all nitrogen fertilizer, now synthesized in large quantities by the
Haber-Bosch process resolved the nutrient limitation inherent to the traditional agrarian
regime. Nitrogen input facilitated by nitrogen fixation of leguminous crops, once a key
technology of agricultural modernization in the 19th Century, reached its peak in Austria in
the 1950s at 30,000 tons but within only a few years was replaced by nitrogen inputs from
artificial fertilizer. These artificial fertilizer inputs grew to 160,000 tons by 1980 (Figure 6a).
In combination with other agrochemicals, breeding and modern transport technologies the
mode of agricultural production changed fundamentally. The regionally optimised low input
land use systems based on the integration of crop production and animal husbandry were
replaced by specialized high input farming systems allowing for a high degree of spatial
differentiation. This new type of industrialized high input agriculture permitted tremendous
increases in area yields and agricultural output (Table 3). As a consequence of these
agricultural innovations, food output of agriculture grew faster than population. For Austria,
this is shown in Figure 6b. In 1950, edible plant biomass produced by Austrian agriculture
was enough to feed 6 million people but would have maintained more than 18 million people
in the 1980s. However, actual net food output is much lower than edible plant biomass and is
sufficient to nourish 12 million people. This indicates, that increasingly edible biomass (above
all cereals) was fed to livestock and converted into animal products.
In essence, the increases in area and labour productivity were accomplished by massive fossil
fuel based energy subsidies into agriculture in terms of fuel, electricity or large energy
requirements for the production of agro-chemicals (Pimentel et al., 1991; Leach, 1976). These
innovations fundamentally changed the role of agriculture within the socio-economic energy
15
Due to restrictions in space we discuss the process industrialization of agriculture only for the Austrian case.
The changes in UK agriculture were of a similar nature. (see e.g. Sieferle et al 2006 and Grigg 1992).
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
18
system. The increase in output was achieved by a declining energy efficiency of agricultural
production and in the strict sense, agriculture turned from an energy providing activity into a
sink for useful energy. The energy return upon energy investment of Austrian agriculture
declined from an input-output ratio of 1 to 9 in the early 20th century to a ratio of 1 to 0.8 in
the 1970s (Krausmann et al. 2003). Additionally, the industrialization of agriculture was
related to a range of environmental pressures including large scale soil degradation, ground
water pollution or habitat destruction (Mannion 1995, Tello et al. 2006).
Another process to be highlighted in this context is the decoupling of production from
animate power: The substitution of the steam engine by the electrical and the internal
combustion engine allowed for far-reaching mechanisation of labour intensive processes also
in agriculture. In contrast to earlier periods of industrialization labour and time saving
technologies in combination with structural changes in industrial labour organisation
facilitated an absolute de-linking of production and animate power. What has been shown for
the agricultural sector is also true for the whole economy. Draught animals rapidly were
replaced by motor vehicles since the 1930s and had virtually disappeared by the 1970s. But
human labour, too, became increasingly substituted by machines and the demand for
industrial workers declined while production continued to grow. In the three decades between
1950 and 1980 the agricultural labour force declined by 55% in the UK and 75% in Austria
(Table 3).
Since the 1960s, the number of workers in the primary and secondary industrial sectors has
declined by roughly 50% in the UK and 43% in Austria (Mitchell, 2003). The disconnect of
production from human labour was a necessary pre-condition for the emerging service
economy and for enabling mass consumption (cf. Ausubel and Grübler, 1995).
Counterintuitively, this phase of the socio-ecological transition transforming the industrial
society into what is often called a service economy or post-industrial society did not lead to
dematerialization (i.e. a declining use of materials and energy). It was systematically linked to
an increase in per capita energy and material consumption (Figure 2 and 3) and the integration
of all parts of the economy into the industrial metabolism.16
With the industrialization of agriculture and the replacement of animate power in production
this phase has made possible the ultimate de-linking of energy provision and land use. But if
we consider the non-substitutability of biomass based food (Ayres, 2007) this process of delinking seems largely exhausted and unlikely to go much further.
Ultimately, the period of rapid growth of energy consumption after World War II came to a
halt in the 1970s (see Figure 3). Since then, per capita energy use has fluctuated around 200
GJ in both the UK and Austria and growth per unit of area has significantly slowed down.17
This deceleration of growth in energy consumption coincided with the so called energy crises
or oil price shocks (Hohensee, 1996) of the 1970s and 1980s. A series of sharp (but
temporary) increases in the price of crude oil, induced by political conflicts in the oil
producing countries in the Near East caused drastic declines in energy use and economic
growth rates (see Smil, 2003). It has also been argued, that the stabilization of per capita
turnover of energy was related to a maturation of major growth industries such as the
16
In a similar way, the industrial revolution only reduced the economic but not the biophysical significance of
agriculture. Industrialization increased the overall intensity of land use and the size of socio-economic biomass
flows increased.
17
Contrary to the similarities in energy use per capita in Austria and the UK, the differences in energy use per
unit of area are large (Figure 2). The higher DEC per unit of area in the UK is due to the higher population
density.
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
19
automobile industry (Grübler 1998), and the steep decline of domestic energy use in the UK
in the early 1980s is partly an effect of systematic deindustrialization during the Thatcher era.
Additionally, a number of factors may have contributed to the obvious slowdown of physical
growth, visible not only in energy turnover but also in the use of materials. The oil price
shocks created a sensibility in industrialized countries for the far-reaching dependency on
imported fossil fuels and fluctuations in oil price. This encouraged new technologies and
efficiency gains allowing growth in demand for energy services at a stabilized input of
primary energy. On the other hand, this has contributed to the discovery and exploitation of
new domestic energy resources such as oil in the North Sea.18 At the same time, globalisation
has brought about the externalisation of energy and material intensive industries from
industrialized countries to countries of the South, a process which may contribute to a
reduction of energy use in industrial economies such as Austria and the UK (Muradian et al.
2002). More recently, the growing awareness of impacts of fossil fuel consumption on global
climate change has resulted in political efforts to reduce energy use by the realization of
potential efficiency gains and recycling and shift from fossil fuels towards carbon neutral
energy sources including biomass, hydropower, wind energy and nuclear. Still, an absolute
decline in energy use is not in sight. Energy and material use continues to grow both in
Austria and the UK such as is the case in most other industrialized countries (Weisz et al.,
2006; Haberl et al., 2006).
6. The industrial socio-ecological regime
During industrialization and in particular during the period of mass production and mass
consumption following World War II the economic latecomer Austria caught up with the UK
in both economic and socio-metabolic terms and, with respect to some key indicators such as
steel production or motorization, it even surpassed the UK. By and large, the history of
industrialization in the two countries has led to remarkably similar energy systems both in
structure and relative size and a convergence of the metabolic profile of the two economies
(Table 1).
The comparative analysis shows that the socio-ecological (or metabolic) transition was
characterized by a stepwise process of decoupling energy provision from land use. The final
step in this transition was the industrialization of agriculture which inverted the role of land
use within the socio-economic energy system. While in the agrarian regime agriculture was
the main energy providing activity and supplied not only the agricultural population, but also
non-agricultural population and production with energy, industrialized agriculture was fuelled
by massive energy inputs from the non-agricultural production system and turned into a net
sink of socio-economically useful energy (Leach, 1976; Martinez-Alier, 1987).
The decoupling of energy provision from land use removed basic limits for biophysical
growth inherent to agrarian societies. Instead of tapping into renewable but comparatively
small flows of energy with a low density, under the industrial regime large stocks of energy
are exploited, allowing mobilization of huge amounts of energy and materials in a short time.
18
Since 1973, the UK has increased the exploitation of North Sea oil and gas and has developed into a major oil
producing country. In combination with the use of nuclear power this has reduced its import dependency by
60%. In Austria the expansion of hydropower and intensified use of biomass had similar effects.
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
20
The new energy basis of the economy led to unprecedented economic, but also physical
growth. Growth under the conditions of the agrarian regime was population driven and in
general led to a decline in energy use per capita. Industrial growth, in contrast, is based on
both population growth and a surge in per capita use of natural resources. Table 4 shows
typical metabolic profiles for advanced European agrarian and industrial regimes and
identifies the physical dimensions of the socio-ecological transition. While the agrarian
regime typically allows for a population density of 30-40 persons per km², the industrial
socio-ecological regime can support several hundred persons per km². The level of per capita
use of material and energy in densely populated industrial societies is by a factor 3-5 larger
than under agrarian conditions.19 This results in an aggregate growth of material and energy
use per unit of area by a factor 10-30.
The high level of per capita use of energy and material resources is inherent in the current
industrial socio-ecological regime and related to the material and energy intensive industrial
production systems (incl. agriculture); the installation, operation and maintenance of large
infrastructures (e.g. buildings, roads) and physical stocks (e.g. cars), the high level of mobility
of goods and people in a spatially highly differentiated economy and a high material standard
of living (including central heating/air conditioning, electrical household appliances, dietary
patterns and tourism). Energy use per unit of area in densely populated industrial societies is
as high as 600 GJ/ha and far beyond the potential of a land based energy system, although
modern land use systems achieve higher biomass yields. Despite the far-reaching substitution
of fossil fuels for biomass, both with respect to energy generation but also the production of
fibres and other raw materials, biomass remains an important material in the metabolism of
industrial societies (Weisz et al. 2006). In Austria and the UK consumption of biomass has
more than doubled during industrialization (Figure 3) and the level of biomass use per capita
has hardly decreased.
The socio-ecological transition also implies a shift in sustainability problems (Sieferle, 2003).
The agrarian socio-ecological regime, making use of renewable energy flows, is based on a
land use system that allows for stable yields and thus has the potential for long-lasting
sustainability. However, sustainability is not guaranteed and numerous cases of collapse and
failure have occurred in the long history of the agrarian socio-ecological regime (Tainter,
1988; Diamond, 2005). The major challenge for sustainability was related to scarce inputs and
the overexploitation of natural resources, while output related environmental problems were
mostly of only local importance. Long-lasting growth imposed a severe threat to the
sustainability of agrarian societies and inevitably led to socio-ecological transition or decline.
Innovations were possible but hard to achieve and every innovation drove the system closer to
its biophysical boundaries making the innovation less likely. Thus, per-capita growth in the
agrarian socio-ecological regime hardly occurred.
In contrast, industrial societies solved the sustainability problem of their predecessors. They
are characterized by (temporary) abundance of energy and materials, while output-related
environmental impacts, habitat loss and social inequality impose a major threat to
sustainability. From the smoke stack intensive coal/steam period with its smog incidents, via
acid deposition and water pollution to anthropogenic carbon emissions and their impact on the
global climate, problems have changed over time, some have been solved technically, while
others continue to worsen. In the long run, however, input related sustainability issues
19
It has been shown that per capita material and energy use in low density industrialized countries in general is
by a factor 2 larger than in high density countries (Haberl et al. 2006; Weisz et al. 2006).
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
21
apparently will become important, because the industrial socio-ecological regime is built on
the exploitation of finite stocks of energy carriers and materials and possibilities for
substitution are limited (Ayres, 2007).
Table 4. Socio-metabolic profiles of the agrarian and industrial socio-ecological regime and country groups for
the year 2000
Agrarian Industrial
[mio]
Population
<40
<400
[cap/km²]
Population density
<1000 >15,000
[intl $/cap]
GDP/cap
>80
<10
Agricultural population [% of total]
40-70 150-400
[GJ/cap.yr]
DEC/cap
3-6
15-25
[t/cap.yr]
DMC/cap
<30
<600
[GJ/ha.yr]
DEC/area
<2
<50
[t/cap.yr]
DMC/area
>95
10-30
Share of biomass in DEC[% of total]
<100
[kg/cap.yr]
Coal consumption
<5
[kg/cap.yr
Iron production/use
<2000
3-6,000
[kg/ha.yr]
Cereal yield
[cars/1000 cap]
300-1000
Motorization
LD
683
32
992
69
37
4
12
1
93
3
2
1,346
5
DC
2,233
77
2,593
46
49
6
38
5
57
143
35
2,040
22
NIC/TM
2,189
29
4,913
47
95
10
41
4
37
672
145
2,782
51
IC
940
43
24,527
5
294
21
85
6
21
1,603
462
4,002
575
DEC…Primary energy use (domestic energy consumption); DMC…Domestic material consumption;
GDP…Gross domestic product in international Geary Khamis Dollars; Agrarian: typical values for advanced
European agrarian socio-ecological regime. Population density and, hence, the level of material and energy use
per unit of area in agrarian societies based on labour intensive horticultural production with low significance of
livestock can reach twice that level (see text); Industrial: Typical values for advanced industrial economies. In
countries with high population densities per capita values of DMC and DEC tend to be at the lower range, while
per area values are high. In countries with low population densities per area values can be very low; LD..,least
developed countries; DC…developing countries; NIC and TM…newly industrialized countries and transition
economies; IC…industrialized countries (classification according to United Nations).
Source: Global metabolic transition database (Krausmann et al. 2007).
The socio-ecological transition is a global phenomenon and gradually has affected the whole
world. However, only a small number of countries went through the full process of regime
transition such as the UK and Austria. Globally around 1 billion people or around 20% of the
population live in countries that show the characteristics of the advanced industrial socioecological regime (Table 4). These countries produce more than 80% of the global GDP,
account for 25% of the global land area and consume 38% of the global primary energy and
37% of the material supply. Roughly 0.6 billion people in economically least developed
countries live in a situation close to that of the historical agrarian socio-ecological regime, i.e.
low per capita energy and material use and low shares of fossil fuels and a small
urban/industrial population (Table 4). The majority of the world population (roughly two
thirds) live in economies in different stages of the above described transition process. Some of
them, the newly industrializing countries (including China, India, Brazil and Russia and other
formerly planned economies) are obviously following an industrialization path which in a
biophysical way resembles the historical path of the industrial core.
Although the specific patterns and the speed of development differ under the conditions of a
global economy and modern technologies (Eisenmenger et al. 2007), industrialization
continues to involve energy, material and labour intensive processes, growing material stocks
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
22
and the large scale use of fossil fuels - at early stages predominantly coal – as has been the
case in the historical regime transition. Taking a biophysical view it becomes evident, that it
will not be possible to accomplish global industrialization without an alternative pathway for
the metabolic transition. Scarcity of oil and gas will increasingly become an issue and
declining energy prices, a major precondition for the industrialization of the industrial core,
are unlikely to prevail for latecomers. Before energy scarcity and rising energy prices become
a major problem, the world is faced with rising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
contributing to global warming and destabilization of the world climatic system to a large and
unknown extent.
Thus the path taken by the Western industrial nations may not be the paragon of economic
development for the rest of the world. Its sustainability-limits may become sensible at an
earlier stage than has been expected regarding fossil energy resources. A world wide
adjustment of material and energy use to the level of current industrialized nations would
imply increasing environmental pressures. In particular, densely populated regions in East and
Southeast Asia, already experiencing high levels of material and energy turnover per area
despite low per capita supply, will face increasing environmental constraints. In the light of
the historical process, the need for a new, sustainable, industrial socio-ecological regime with
lower per capita material and energy turnover and a lower share of non-renewable energy and
materials becomes a vital need for the global system.
Acknowledgments:
The paper was first presented at the 9th biennial Conference on Ecological Economics in New
Delhi in 2006. The authors are grateful to Marina Fischer-Kowalski for many fruitful
discussions on the subjects of our paper. We are also thankful to Clive L. Spash and Graham
Turner and two anonymous reviewers for their comments to a draft version and to Karl-Heinz
Erb for support with graphics. The paper is based on research conducted in the project The
Transformation of Society’s Natural Relations, coordinated by Marina Fischer-Kowalski and
funded by the Austrian Science Fund FWF (project P-16759 G04).
References
Ausubel,J.H. and Grübler,A., 1995. Working Less and Living Longer: Long-Term Trends in Working Time and
Time Budgets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 50: 195-213.
Ayres,R.U., 1990a. Technological Transformations and Long Waves. Part I. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 37: 1-37.
Ayres,R.U., 1990b. Technological Transformations and Long Waves. Part II. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 36: 111-137.
Ayres,R.U., 2007. On the practical limits of substitution. Ecological Economics, 61: 115-128.
Ayres,R.U. and van den Bergh,J.C.J.M., 2005. A theory of economic growth with material/energy resources and
dematerialization: Interaction of three growth mechanisms. Ecological Economics, 55: 96-118.
Boserup,E., 1965. The conditions of agricultural growth. The economics of agrarian change under population
pressure. Aldine/Earthscan, Chicago.
Chorley,G.P.H., 1981. The Agricultural Revolution in Northern Europe, 1750-1880: Nitrogen, Legumes, and
Crop Productivity. The Economic History Review, 34:71-93.
Costanza,R., Graumlich,L.J. and Steffen,W., 2007. Sustainability or Collapse? An Integrated History and Future
of People on Earth. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, London, UK.
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
23
Cunfer,G., 2005. On the Great Plains: Agriculture and Environment. Texas A&M University Press, College
Station.
Cusso,X., Garrabou,R. and Tello,E., 2005. Social metabolism in an agrarian region of Catalonia (Spain) in 1860
to 1870: Flows, energy balance and land use. Ecological Economics, 58: 49-65.
de Vries,B. and Goudsblom,J., 2002. Mappae Mundi. Humans and their Habitats in a Long-Term SocioEcological Perspective. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
Diamond,J.M., 2005. Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. Viking, New York, NY.
Eisenmenger, N., Schandl, H. and Ramos-Martin, J., 2007. Transition in a modern context: patterns of
development in a globalizing world. In: M.Fischer-Kowalski and H.Haberl (Editors), Socioecological
transitions and global change: Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land Use. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, USA, pp. 179- 222
Fischer-Kowalski,M. and Haberl,H., 1997. Tons, Joules and Money: Modes of Production and their
Sustainability Problems. Society and Natural Resources, 10: 61-85.
Fischer-Kowalski,M. and Haberl,H., 2007. Socioecological transitions and global change: Trajectories of Social
Metabolism and Land Use. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, USA.
Grigg,D., 1987. The industrial Revolution and Land Transformation. In: M.G.Wolman and F.G.A.Fournier
(Editors), Land Transformation in Agriculture. John Wiley, Chichester, New York, pp. 79-106.
Grigg,D.B., 1992. The Transformation of Agriculture in the West. Blackwell, Oxford.
Grübler,A., 1998. Technology and Global Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Haberl,H., 2001. The Energetic Metabolism of Societies, Part I: Accounting Concepts. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 5: 11-33.
Haberl,H., Weisz,H., Amann,C., Bondeau,A., Eisenmenger,N., Erb,K.-H., Fischer-Kowalski,M. and
Krausmann,F., 2006. The energetic metabolism of the EU-15 and the USA. Decadal energy input timeseries with an emphasis on biomass. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10: 151-171.
Hohensee,J., 1996. Der erste Ölpreisschock 1973/74. Die politischen und gesellschaftlichen Auswirkungen der
arabischen Erdölpolitik auf die Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Westeuropa. Steiner, Stuttgart.
Hornborg,A., 2006. Footprints in the cotton fields: The Industrial Revolution as time-space appropriation and
environmental load displacement. Ecological Economics, 59: 74-81.
Hornborg, A., McNeill, J.R., Martinez-Alier, J. (eds.), 2007. Rethinking Environmental History: World System
History and Global Environmental Change, Lanham:Alta Mira Press.
IEA. Energy Statistics of OECD countries (CDRom version). Internet . 2004. Paris, International Energy Agency
(IEA), Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).
Kastner, T., 2007. Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) in the Philippines 1910-2003: a
socio-ecological analysis. Social Ecology Working Paper 92, Institute of Social Ecology, Vienna.
Kjaergaard,T., 1994. The Danish Revolution 1500-1800. An Ecohistorical Interpretation. Cambridge.
Krausmann,F., 2001a. Land Use and Industrial Modernization: an empirical analysis of human influence on the
functioning of ecosystems in Austria 1830 - 1995. Land Use Policy, 18: 17-26.
Krausmann,F., 2001b. Rekonstruktion der Entwicklung von Materialflüssen im Zuge der Industrialisierung:
Biomasse Materialflüsse in Österreich von 1830 bis 1998. Breuninger Stiftung, Stuttgart.
Krausmann,F., 2004. Milk, Manure and Muscular Power. Livestock and the Industrialization of Agriculture.
Human Ecology, 32: 735-773.
Krausmann,F. and Haberl,H., 2002. The process of industrialization from the perspective of energetic
metabolism. Socioeconomic energy flows in Austria 1830-1995. Ecological Economics, 41: 177-201.
Krausmann,F. and Haberl,H., 2007. Land-use change and socio-economic metabolism. A macro view of Austria
1830-2000. In: M.Fischer-Kowalski and H.Haberl (Editors), Socioecological transitions and global
change: Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land Use. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK,
Northampton, USA, pp. 31-59.
Krausmann,F., Haberl,H., Schulz,N.B., Erb,K.-H., Darge,E. and Gaube,V., 2003a. Land-use change and socioeconomic metabolism in Austria. Part I: driving forces of land-use change: 1950-1995. Land Use
Policy, 20: 1-20.
Krausmann, F., Schandl, H., and Schulz, N.B. 2003b. Long Term Industrial Transformation: A Comparative
Study on the Development of Social Metabolism and Land Use in Austria and the United Kingdom
1830-2000. Social Ecology Working Paper 70. IFF Social Ecology, Vienna.
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
24
Krausmann,F., Fischer-Kowalski,M., Schandl,H., and Eisenmenger,N., 2007. The global metabolic transition:
concept and empirical evidence. Journal of Industrial Ecology, submitted March 2007.
Leach,G., 1976. Energy and food production. IPC Science and Technology Press, Guildford.
Liebig,J.v., 1865. Letters on the Subject of the Utilization of the Metropolitan Sewage. W.H. Colindridge,
London.
Loomis,R.S. and Connor,D.J., 1992. Crop Ecology: Productivity and Management in Agricultural Systems.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lutz, B. 1984. Der kurze Traum immerwährender Prosperität. Frankfurt and New York, Campus.
Maddison,A., 2001. The World Economy. A millenial perspective. OECD, Paris.
Malanima,P., 2002. Energy Systems in Agrarian Societies: the European Deviation. Consiglio Nazionale della
Ricerche, Istituto di Studi sulle Società del Mediterraneo (CNR - ISSM), Napoli.
Malthus,T.R., 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. London.
Mannion,A.M., 1995. Agriculture and Environmental Change. Temporal and Spatial Dimensions. John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, New York.
Martinez-Alier,J., 1987. Ecological Economics. Energy, Environment and Society. Blackwell, Oxford.
Martinez-Alier, J. and H. Schandl 2002. Special section: European environmental history and ecological
economics. Ecological Economics 41: 175-176.
McNeill,J.R., 2000. Something new under the sun. An environmental history of the twentieth century. Allen
Lane, London.
Mitchell,B.R., 2003. International Historical Statistics Europe 1750-2000. Palgrave Mcmillan, New York.
Muradian, R., M. O’Connor and J. Martinez-Alier 2002. Embodied pollution in trade: estimating the
‘environmental load displacement’ of industrial countries. Ecological Economics 41: 51-67.
Netting,R.M., 1993. Smallholders, Householders. Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable
Agriculture. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
OECD/IEA/Eurostat, 2005. Energy statistics manual. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris.
Overton,M., 1996. Agricultural Revolution in England. Cambridge University Press, Cambrige.
Pfister,C., 2003. Energiepreis und Umweltbelastung. Zum Stand der Diskussion über das "1950er Syndrom". In:
W.Siemann (Editors), Umweltgeschichte Themen und Perspektiven. C.H. Beck, München, pp. 61-86.
Pimentel,D., Dazhong,W. and Giampietro,M., 1991. Technological changes in energy use in US agricultural
production. In: S.R.Gliessman (Editors), Agroecology, Researching the Technological Basis for
Sustainable Agriculture. Springer, New York, pp. 305-321.
Pimentel,D. and Pimentel,M., 1996. Food, Energy and Society. University Press of Colorado, Niwot.
Pomeranz,K., 2000. The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Ricardo,D., 1817. Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London.
Ropke,I., 2005. Trends in the development of ecological economics from the late 1980s to the early 2000s.
Ecological Economics, 55: 262-290.
Schandl,H., Grünbühel,C.M., Haberl,H. and Weisz,H., 2002. Handbook of Physical Accounting. Measuring biophysical dimensions of socio-ecomonic activities. MFA - EFA - HANPP. Federal Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Vienna.
Schandl,H. and Krausmann,F., 2007. The Great Transformation: A socio-metabolic reading of the
industrialization of the United Kingdom. In: M.Fischer-Kowalski and H.Haberl (Editors),
Socioecological transitions and global change: Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land Use.
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, USA, pp. 38-115.
Schandl,H. and Schulz,N.B., 2002a. Changes in United Kingdom´s natural relations in terms of society's
metabolism and land use from 1850 to the present day. Ecological Economics, 41: 203-221.
Schandl,H. and Schulz,N.B., 2002b. Industrial Ecology: United Kingdom. In: R.U.Ayres and L.W.Ayres
(Editors), Handbook for Industrial Ecology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 323-333.
Sieferle,R.P., 1982. Der unterirdische Wald. Energiekrise und Industrielle Revolution. C.H.Beck, München
(english edition: The Subterranean Forest. Energy Systems and the Industrial Revolution. The White
Horse Press, Cambridge 2001).
Sieferle,R.P., 2003. Nachhaltigkeit in universalhistorischer Perspektive. In: W.Siemann (Editors),
Umweltgeschichte Themen und Perspektiven. C.H. Beck, München, pp. 39-60.
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
25
Sieferle,R.P., Krausmann,F., Schandl,H. and Winiwarter,V., 2006. Das Ende der Fläche. Zum Sozialen
Metabolismus der Industrialisierung. Böhlau, Köln.
Simmons,I.G., 1989. Changing the face of the earth. Blackwell, Oxford, UK-Cambridge, MA.
Smil,V., 1991. General Energetics. Energy in the Biosphere and Civilization. John Wiley & Sons, Manitoba,
New York.
Smil,V., 2001. Enriching the Earth. Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Smil,V., 2003. Energy at The Crossroads. Global Perspectives and Uncertainties. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Mass., London, England.
Stanhill,G., 1984. Energy and Agriculture. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo.
Tainter,J.A., 1988. The collapse of complex societies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Tello,E., Garrabou,R. and Cusso,X., 2006. Energy balances and land use: The making of an agrarian landscape
from the vantage point of social metabolism (the Catalan Valles county in 1860/70). In: M.Agnoletti
(Editors), The conservation of cultural landscapes. CABI International Publishing, London, New York,
pp. 42-56.
Wackernagel,M., 1999. Ecological Economics Forum: Why sustainability analysis must include biophysical
assessments. Ecological Economics, 29: 13-15.
Weisz,H., Krausmann,F., Amann,C., Eisenmenger,N., Erb,K.-H., Hubacek,K. and Fischer-Kowalski,M., 2006.
The physical economy of the European Union: Cross-country comparison and determinants of material
consumption. Ecological Economics, 58: 676-698.
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009
26
Published as: Krausmann Fridolin, Heinz Schandl and Rolf Peter Sieferle, 2008. Socio-ecological regime transitions in Austria and the
United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 65(1), 187-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.009