IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i15p8161-d598652.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Analysis of the Potential for the Formation of ‘Nodes of Persisting Complexity’

Author

Listed:
  • Nick King

    (Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK)

  • Aled Jones

    (Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK)

Abstract

Human civilisation has undergone a continuous trajectory of rising sociopolitical complexity since its inception; a trend which has undergone a dramatic recent acceleration. This phenomenon has resulted in increasingly severe perturbation of the Earth System, manifesting recently as global-scale effects such as climate change. These effects create an increased risk of a global ‘de-complexification’ (collapse) event in which complexity could undergo widespread reversal. ‘Nodes of persisting complexity’ are geographical locations which may experience lesser effects from ‘de-complexification’ due to having ‘favourable starting conditions’ that may allow the retention of a degree of complexity. A shortlist of nations (New Zealand, Iceland, the United Kingdom, Australia and Ireland) were identified and qualitatively analysed in detail to ascertain their potential to form ‘nodes of persisting complexity’ (New Zealand is identified as having the greatest potential). The analysis outputs are applied to identify insights for enhancing resilience to ‘de-complexification’.

Suggested Citation

  • Nick King & Aled Jones, 2021. "An Analysis of the Potential for the Formation of ‘Nodes of Persisting Complexity’," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-32, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:15:p:8161-:d:598652
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8161/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8161/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick King & Aled Jones, 2020. "An Assessment of Civil Nuclear ‘Enabling’ and ‘Amelioration’ Factors for EROI Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-34, October.
    2. Lambert, Jessica G. & Hall, Charles A.S. & Balogh, Stephen & Gupta, Ajay & Arnold, Michelle, 2014. "Energy, EROI and quality of life," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 153-167.
    3. Jarvis, Andrew, 2018. "Energy Returns and The Long-run Growth of Global Industrial Society," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 722-729.
    4. Roberto Pasqualino & Aled W. Jones & Irene Monasterolo & Alexander Phillips, 2015. "Understanding Global Systems Today—A Calibration of the World3-03 Model between 1995 and 2012," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-26, July.
    5. Ian Goldin & Mike Mariathasan, 2015. "The Butterfly Defect: How Globalization Creates Systemic Risks, and What to Do about It," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 10214-2.
    6. Charles A. S. Hall & Stephen Balogh & David J.R. Murphy, 2009. "What is the Minimum EROI that a Sustainable Society Must Have?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-23, January.
    7. Hagens, N.J., 2020. "Economics for the future – Beyond the superorganism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    8. Thomas Love & Cindy Isenhour, 2016. "Energy and economy: Recognizing high-energy modernity as a historical period," Economic Anthropology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(1), pages 6-16, January.
    9. Ugo Bardi, 2013. "Mind Sized World Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-16, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nick King & Aled Jones, 2020. "An Assessment of Civil Nuclear ‘Enabling’ and ‘Amelioration’ Factors for EROI Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-34, October.
    2. Ilaria Perissi & Alessandro Lavacchi & Ugo Bardi, 2021. "The Role of Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) in Complex Adaptive Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Jonathan Dumas & Antoine Dubois & Paolo Thiran & Pierre Jacques & Francesco Contino & Bertrand Cornélusse & Gauthier Limpens, 2022. "The Energy Return on Investment of Whole-Energy Systems: Application to Belgium," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 1-34, December.
    4. Florian Fizaine & Victor Court, 2016. "The energy-economic growth relationship: a new insight from the EROI perspective," Working Papers 1601, Chaire Economie du climat.
    5. Dupont, Elise & Koppelaar, Rembrandt & Jeanmart, Hervé, 2018. "Global available wind energy with physical and energy return on investment constraints," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 322-338.
    6. Lina I. Brand-Correa & Paul E. Brockway & Claire L. Copeland & Timothy J. Foxon & Anne Owen & Peter G. Taylor, 2017. "Developing an Input-Output Based Method to Estimate a National-Level Energy Return on Investment (EROI)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-21, April.
    7. David J. Murphy & Marco Raugei & Michael Carbajales-Dale & Brenda Rubio Estrada, 2022. "Energy Return on Investment of Major Energy Carriers: Review and Harmonization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, June.
    8. Valerii Havrysh & Antonina Kalinichenko & Edyta Szafranek & Vasyl Hruban, 2022. "Agricultural Land: Crop Production or Photovoltaic Power Plants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-23, April.
    9. Carey W. King, 2021. "Interdependence of Growth, Structure, Size and Resource Consumption During an Economic Growth Cycle," Papers 2106.02512, arXiv.org.
    10. Hongshuo Yan & Lianyong Feng & Jianliang Wang & Yuanying Chi & Yue Ma, 2021. "A Comprehensive Net Energy Analysis and Outlook of Energy System in China," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 1-14, December.
    11. Carlos de Castro & Iñigo Capellán-Pérez, 2020. "Standard, Point of Use, and Extended Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) from Comprehensive Material Requirements of Present Global Wind, Solar, and Hydro Power Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-43, June.
    12. Charles A. S. Hall, 2022. "The 50th Anniversary of The Limits to Growth : Does It Have Relevance for Today’s Energy Issues?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-13, July.
    13. Colla, Martin & Ioannou, Anastasia & Falcone, Gioia, 2020. "Critical review of competitiveness indicators for energy projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    14. Wang, Jianliang & Liu, Mingming & McLellan, Benjamin C. & Tang, Xu & Feng, Lianyong, 2017. "Environmental impacts of shale gas development in China: A hybrid life cycle analysis," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 38-45.
    15. Rodríguez-Huerta, Edgar & Rosas-Casals, Martí & Sorman, Alevgul H., 2017. "A societal metabolism approach to job creation and renewable energy transitions in Catalonia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 551-564.
    16. Court, Victor & Fizaine, Florian, 2017. "Long-Term Estimates of the Energy-Return-on-Investment (EROI) of Coal, Oil, and Gas Global Productions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 145-159.
    17. Heun, Matthew Kuperus & Owen, Anne & Brockway, Paul E., 2018. "A physical supply-use table framework for energy analysis on the energy conversion chain," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 1134-1162.
    18. Fizaine, Florian & Court, Victor, 2016. "Energy expenditure, economic growth, and the minimum EROI of society," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 172-186.
    19. Dupont, Elise & Koppelaar, Rembrandt & Jeanmart, Hervé, 2020. "Global available solar energy under physical and energy return on investment constraints," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 257(C).
    20. Victor Court, 2019. "An Estimation of Different Minimum Exergy Return Ratios Required for Society," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 1-13, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:15:p:8161-:d:598652. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.