sustainability

Concept Paper
Towards a Single Integrative Metric on the Dynamics of
Social-Environmental Systems
Jiquan Chen 1,2, * , Ranjeet John 3 , Changliang Shao 4 , Zutao Ouyang 5 , Elizabeth A. Mack 2 ,
Geoffrey M. Henebry 1,2 , Gang Dong 6 , Ginger R. H. Allington 7 , Amber L. Pearson 2 , Fangyuan Zhao 4 ,
David P. Roy 1,2 , Peilei Fan 1,8 , Gabriela E. Shirkey 2 , Li Tian 9 , Maira Kussainova 10 , Jingyan Chen 11 ,
David E. Reed 12 and Michael Abraha 1

1 Center for Global Change and Earth Observations, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA;
[email protected] (G.M.H.); [email protected] (D.P.R.); [email protected] (P.F.); [email protected] (M.A.)
2 Department of Geography, Environment, and Spatial Sciences, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824, USA; [email protected] (E.A.M.); [email protected] (A.L.P.);
[email protected] (G.E.S.)
3 Department of Biology, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD 57069, USA; [email protected]
4 National Hulunber Grassland Ecosystem Observation and Research Station,
Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences,
Beijing 100875, China; [email protected] (C.S.); [email protected] (F.Z.)
5 Earth System Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; [email protected]
6 School of Life Science, Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030006, China; [email protected]
7 Department of Geography, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA;
[email protected]
8 School of Planning, Design, and Construction, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA





 9 Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Beijing 100101, China; [email protected]
Citation: Chen, J.; John, R.; Shao, C.; 10 Sustainable Agriculture Center, Kazakh National Agrarian University, Almaty 050010, Kazakhstan;
Ouyang, Z.; Mack, E.A.; Henebry, [email protected]
G.M.; Dong, G.; Allington, G.R.H.; 11 Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China; [email protected]
Pearson, A.L.; Zhao, F.; et al. Towards 12 Department of Environmental Science, University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma,
a Single Integrative Metric on the Chickasha, OK 73018, USA; [email protected]
Dynamics of Social-Environmental * Correspondence: [email protected]
Systems. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246.
Abstract: Integrating the dynamics and interconnections of natural and human system properties into
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su132011246
a single measure would make it simpler to reliably and repeatedly assess and compare different social-
environmental systems (SES). We propose a novel metric to assess the magnitudes and variations
Academic Editor: Åsa Gren in SES dynamics by integrating longitudinal gross domestic product, population, and ecosystem
net primary production. We use annual public data across the Asian Drylands Belt (ADB) from
Received: 1 August 2021 1992 through 2016 for 18 political entities as our testbed for assessing the efficacy of the metric.
Accepted: 27 September 2021 We perform cross-comparisons with existing natural and social science metrics to demonstrate the
Published: 12 October 2021 validity of the proposed metric, including the Human Development Index and the Palmer Drought
Severity Index. The new metric demonstrates notable and meaningful differences in trends among
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral the political entities that reflect major social, economic and environmental events over the 25-year
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
period. It provides unique perspectives about the three pillar components (social, economic and
published maps and institutional affil-
environmental systems) in each of the 18 political entities (PE) of the ADB. The metric also shows
iations.
meaningful associations with key economic and environmental indicators and great potential for
broader application and evaluation, given additional testing in other countries, regions, and biomes.

Keywords: Asian Drylands Belt; social-environmental system; quantitative measure; sustainability

Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
1. Introduction
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
1.1. Need for Integrative Indicators
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ The concept of integrated social-environmental systems (SES) is becoming a dominant
4.0/). paradigm to understand the complex interactions of humans and nature. A prevailing

Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011246 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 2 of 17

thought within this concept is that an SES is composed of three major pillars: social, eco-
nomic, and ecological systems [1–5]. Understanding the connections, forcing mechanisms,
and feedbacks among the properties of each pillar within the system is central in SES and
is an ongoing research challenge [6]. Here, the development of quantitative metrics that
integrate information from social, economic and ecological aspects are needed so that an
SES can be reliably and repeatedly assessed with quantitative measures [7–12], ideally with
a single measure [13].
Many SES metrics have been developed in the diverse disciplines of social, economic
and environmental science. These include population size (POP) and POP density (POPd ,
pers km−2 ) for human demography, gross domestic product (GDP, USD yr−1 ) and GDP
per capita (GDPpc , USD pers−1 yr−1 ) for economic development and standard of living,
and net primary production (NPP, Mg m−2 yr−1 ) and evapotranspiration (ET, mm yr−1 )
for ecosystem functions. These metrics are well established because they can be measured
or estimated, have physical units, and can be understood by policymakers and scientists.
Integrated measures are an area of emerging research [13] and increasingly need academic
and non-academic contributions to obtain the best available knowledge for each case
(i.e., problem-based approach) for decision making [14]. We contend that a single metric
on SES status that uses annual public data available for countries around the world has
yet to be derived. Filling this gap is important from both scientific and policy perspec-
tives if we are to effectively analyze the inter-connectivity among the SESs, understand
system trajectories, and support sound regulatory processes in a cost-effective approach.
This new integrative metric would provide a better understanding of SES dynamics and
SES tipping points.
Most works to date exploring the interconnections among SES metrics have consid-
ered pairs of indicators. For example, the indicator GDP per capita cannot characterize
societal advancement or economic contributions of a country alone but can be used as an
indicator of social welfare if the GDP estimates are undertaken within a cost–benefit analy-
sis framework [15–17]. Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) is one
early attempt to integrate ecosystem production with human population size for different
countries [18–22]. Similar metrics were applied for urban development (NPP:POP) [23,24],
among administrative units of a region (NPP:GDPpc ) [25,26] and at global scales [22,27,28].
In an updated review of the UN’s original concept of sustainability (e.g., the Brundtland
Report [1]), Holden et al., (2014) compared changes between the ecological footprint, the
human development index (HDI), Gini Coefficient and the ratio of renewable energy to
total energy [5]. They found different tight correlations at a global scale that can be used by
national and international policymakers in their decisions about sustainable development.
The aforementioned studies considered metrics from the perspectives of ecosystems and
human demography (e.g., NPP:POP) or ecosystems and economic status (e.g., ET:GDPpc ).
A few also examined the changes due to institutional shifts [29,30]. The HDI is calculated
as the geometric mean of a life expectancy index, an education index, and a gross na-
tional income (GNI) index but does not include environmental aspects [31]. Böhringer and
Jochem (2007) examined the consistency and meaningfulness of 11 popular sustainability
indices, including HDI, Ecologic Footprint, and Living Planet Index (also see [7]) [32]. They
concluded these indices had limited explanatory power, and thus were not useful, if not
altogether misleading, for policy development and evaluation. More recently, Hickel (2020)
pointed out deficiencies in ecological indicators and derived a Sustainability Development
Index (SDI), which is comprised of HDI, total CO2 emissions at the national level, and the
material footprint of countries [13]. While this is an important step forward, the use of
CO2 emissions in the SDI calculation only considers energy consumption and does not
include emissions arising from ecosystem processes. Thus, while a plethora of indices exist,
none were able to reliably represent all three SES pillars in a way that would contribute to
impact assessments or policy [33–35].
In seeking a new, integrated metric on SES (IMoSES), we applied the following criteria:
(1) quantitative metrics for each of the three sustainability pillars (social, economic, and
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 3 of 17

ecological systems), and (2) annually available data to facilitate comparisons through time.
Ecosystem production (e.g., NPP), GDP and POP are among the most widely recognized
and applied measurements in ecosystem science, macroeconomics, and the social sciences,
respectively (Table 1). IMoSES is an integration of GDP, POP, and NPP in the context of
land area (A, km2 ) with critical resource input (e.g., evapotranspiration) as the regulator
(i.e., the denominator in Equations (3)–(5)). We calculate IMoSES across the Asian Drylands
Belt (ADB) as a proof of concept to demonstrate its use and interpretation in understanding
SES dynamics. The ADB region is used because of (1) data availability after QA/QC in
our labs and (2) the dramatic shifts in recent decades in social, economic, and ecological
systems. Countries in the ADB include the Newly Independent States (NIS) formed by the
breakup of the Soviet Union. Many of them have experienced periods of armed conflict
and/or profound social changes that have initiated a series of economic changes and shifts
in livelihoods. Physically, the region has also experienced higher-than-global average
warming and reduction in water vapor influx [36], more frequent climatic extremes such as
severe winters/dzuds [37], heatwaves [38], and large-scale dust storms [39].

Table 1. Variable names and data sources for IMoSES calculations and verifications. GDP in 2020 USD is deflated to constant
2011 USD using the consumer price index (CPI) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Daily carbon price is available. We
used the average carbon price of 9.966 EUR per ton of CO2 and currency exchange rate of 0.7875 USD per EUR during
2009–2020 due to a lack of price data before 26 October 2009. Livestock was converted to animal unit (AU) equivalents
following conversion from livestock to sheep by the FAO (http://www.fao.org/3/y4176e/y4176e04.htm). More databases
are provided in the tables for potential uses of IMoSES (e.g., livestock, CO2 emission). All data accessed between June
and August 2020.

Variable (Unit) Source Webpage

Political Entity (PE) level (1992–2016)
NPP (g m−2 yr−1 ) AVHHR http://glcf.umd.edu/data/glopem/
NPP (g m−2 yr−1 ) MODIS https://earthdata.nasa.gov/
PET (mm) CRU, UEA http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/data
GDP (USD) SNA, UN https://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/Basic
POP (pers) UN https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard
PDSI (−10, 10) CRU, UEA http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/data
LSK (Au km−2 ) FAOSTAT http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA
HDI (0–1) WB https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/
SDI (0–1) SDI Team https://www.sustainabledevelopmentindex.org/
LEI (yr) WB https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/
CO2 and N2 O emission WB https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/
Prefecture level (2016)
NPP (g m−2 yr−1 ) MOD17A3 https://earthdata.nasa.gov/
ET (mm) MOD16A3 https://earthdata.nasa.gov/
GDP (USD yr−1 ) Yearbooks https://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/Basic
POP (n) Yearbooks http://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=E0103
LSK (Au) Yearbooks http://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=E0103
Others
Temperature (◦ C) CRU4.04 https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg/
Precipitation (mm) CRU4.40 https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg/
Carbon Price
Markets Insider https://markets.businessinsider.com/
(USD Mg CO2 )

1.2. Integrative Indicator for SES Dynamics

Let IMoSES be the product of economic and ecosystem production efficiency:
Economic Production Ecosystem Production
· (1)
Resource Input Resource Input
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 4 of 17

where economic production may be any of the widely used indicators for economic devel-
opment, such as GDP, energy production, agricultural production, etc.; whereas ecosystem
production may be GPP, NPP, grain yield, livestock production, etc. Resource input is
the amount of resources that are consumed for an SES to produce and function, such as
water or energy input. This generic model needs to consider additional parameters to have
different weighing factors when the same resource input is used for both economic and
ecosystem production. The parameter (κ) is introduced to reflect the calculation of the
two efficiencies:
[ Economic Production]·[ Ecosystem production]
I MoSES = (2)
[ Resource Input]κ
where κ is a regulatory parameter and varies from neutral linear (κ = 0), to negative linear
(κ = 1), or positive linear (κ < −1) regulations on the magnitude of IMoSES. Where the unit
and weight of economic production and ecosystem production are the same, we would
use the sum of these efficiencies. For example, GDP as the most popular indicator of
economic systems has a unit of USD yr−1 , whereas NPP as a widely used measure of
ecosystem production has a unit of Mg ha−1 yr−1 . Additionally, the proposed IMoSES
needs to consider the land area (A) and population size (POP), so a large country can
be compared with a small one, or an SES with high POP can be compared with a less
dense one. For example, when GPD is used for economic development, GDP per capita
(GDPpc ) is recognized to reflect social contributions. Similarly, HANPP (i.e., NPP·A/POP)
is appropriate to represent the ecosystem production of an SES.
Using evapotranspiration (ET, mm yr−1 ) as the resource maintaining an SES, IMoSES
can be expressed as:
GDP ( NPP· A)
 
1
I MoSES = · · κ (3)
POP POP ET
This calculation can have multiple expressions and several intermediate variables to
emphasize different aspects of SES properties and dynamics, including:
GDP 1 NPP
= · · (4)
POP POP/A ET κ
GDPpc
= ·WUE when κ = 1 (5)
POPd
where A (km−2 ) is the land area of an SES, (NPP·A, Mg yr−1 ) is the total NPP of the
SES, and κ is a sole parameter determining the strength of ET regulations; GDP/POP is
known as GDP per capita (GDPpc , USD pers−1 yr−1 ), POP/A is population density (POPd ,
pers km−2 ), (NPP·A)/POP (Mg pers−1 yr−1 ) is called HANPP [22], and NPP/ET is known
as water use efficiency (WUE, mg g−1 ) in ecosystem studies [40,41]. Using carbon stock
information, the unit for NPP can be converted to USD yr−1 based on monetary valuations
of ecosystem services [42], resulting in a unit of USD2 pers−2 yr−2 mm−2 for IMoSES when
κ = 2. To make √ this unit more meaningful, one can consider the use of the square root
of
√ IMoSES (i.e., IMoSES) that will have a unit of USD pers−1 yr−1 mm−1 . In this case,
IMoSES) can be interpreted as water use efficiency of SES performance. Notably, energy
consumption can be used as an alternative resource input for ET; IMoSES then becomes a
measure of energy use efficiency, with a unit of USD pers−1 yr−1 W−1 . Other resource use
efficiencies [43] can be further explored to substitute for WUE (Figure 1). Additionally, the
strength of ET regulations (i.e., water limitations) can be adjusted by the value of κ. It can
vary from no control (κ = 0), to negative linear (κ = 1), positive linear (κ < −1) or nonlinear
control on the magnitude of IMoSES when κ 6= +1 or −1. To introduce the approach,
we primarily draw on IMoSES when assessing √ and illustrating it implications (Table 2,
Figures 2–6), with one case (Figure
√ 4) using IMoSES for demonstration purposes. We
argue that both IMoSES and IMoSES can be used for real world applications so long as
the units are consistently presented.
 be further explored to substitute for WUE (Figure 1). Additionally, the strength of ET reg
ulations (i.e., water limitations) can be adjusted by the value of κ. It can vary from n
control (κ = 0), to negative linear (κ = 1), positive linear (κ < −1) or nonlinear control on th
magnitude of IMoSES when κ ≠ +1 or −1. To introduce the approach, we primarily draw
on IMoSES when assessing and illustrating it implications (Table 2, Figures 2–6), with on
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 5 of 17
case (Figure 4) using √IMoSES for demonstration purposes. We argue that both IMoSE
and √IMoSES can be used for real world applications so long as the units are consistentl
presented.

Figure 1. Calculations of the intermediate

Figure 1. Calculations variables and variables
of the intermediate IMoSES from
andsix input variables
IMoSES from sixusing
inputthe algorithms
variables of Equations
using the
(3)–(5). Historical
algorithms of Equations (3)–(5). Historical data during 1992–2016 from Inner Mongolia (IM)the
data during 1992–2016 from Inner Mongolia (IM) and Mongolia (MN) are used to illustrate changes
and
of input variables, intermediate variables and IMoSES. Because of the large differences between the two jurisdictions,
Mongolia (MN) are used to illustrate the changes of input variables, intermediate variables and
independent vertical axes are used for MN (leftmost labels, blue) and IM (rightmost labels, grey). The vertical axes are
scaled for IMoSES. Because of
easy visualization of the
the large differences
changes over time.between the two jurisdictions, independent vertical axes are
used for MN (leftmost labels, blue) and IM (rightmost labels, grey). The vertical axes are scaled for
easy visualization of the changes over time.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 6 of 17

Table 2. Changes in IMoSES (USD2 yr−2 pers−2 mm−1 ) during 1992–2016 for the 18 political entities (PEs) across the Asian Drylands Belt (ADB). IMoSES is calculated
with κ = 1 (Equations (3)–(5)).

AF KG KZ TJ TM UZ GS IM MN NX QH TB XJ IQ IR JO SY TK
Year
Central Asia East Asia The Middle East
1992 1.08 12.68 141.16 2.85 12.56 3.09 2.88 14.29 154.21 1.32 22.10 42.94 9.87 1.05 6.57 2.50 2.25 42.18
1993 0.66 10.97 141.02 2.21 10.98 2.66 3.06 15.45 177.61 1.47 24.97 39.47 10.94 0.77 7.22 2.23 2.61 43.97
1994 0.43 8.81 109.81 1.67 9.61 2.52 2.70 17.19 192.73 1.41 25.07 42.95 11.56 0.57 6.46 2.30 2.02 30.42
1995 0.52 7.31 81.26 1.29 7.18 1.98 2.76 17.05 160.31 1.25 22.37 40.89 11.17 0.47 6.31 2.14 2.10 38.40
1996 0.44 9.05 85.81 1.08 6.70 1.72 3.64 20.70 146.42 1.92 25.38 43.62 11.48 0.70 6.39 1.86 2.10 38.78
1997 0.38 7.92 102.29 0.88 7.72 2.20 3.59 20.94 118.24 1.55 25.61 48.46 12.16 0.66 5.15 1.85 2.31 40.68
1998 0.51 7.90 73.00 1.50 9.37 2.26 4.03 26.10 141.77 1.81 26.91 57.86 14.01 1.05 5.72 2.16 1.94 40.81
1999 0.33 5.41 63.83 0.99 9.94 2.07 4.25 23.98 103.55 1.78 31.23 62.81 13.95 1.09 4.65 1.78 1.30 33.80
2000 0.28 4.91 80.41 0.51 11.02 1.22 4.18 23.37 94.13 1.23 31.31 73.25 14.18 0.95 3.90 1.75 1.22 31.16
2001 0.23 4.89 84.64 0.55 12.74 0.73 4.21 23.74 100.20 1.53 31.19 76.71 14.92 1.24 4.26 1.90 1.78 21.72
2002 0.33 6.18 123.13 0.88 22.11 1.25 5.18 30.19 104.22 2.60 36.83 82.87 17.62 1.08 5.46 1.95 1.57 26.60
2003 0.40 6.94 132.11 1.08 30.77 1.20 5.72 38.52 129.91 2.89 38.29 91.77 18.51 0.94 5.35 2.05 1.64 30.44
2004 0.33 6.84 145.28 1.31 29.52 1.27 6.40 40.88 130.98 3.06 46.21 104.89 18.41 1.63 6.74 2.09 1.81 40.68
2005 0.48 8.25 195.97 1.70 35.47 1.53 7.88 56.81 169.59 3.00 59.56 114.33 22.12 1.81 7.98 2.11 1.81 50.17
2006 0.35 7.17 220.29 1.34 30.10 1.36 8.36 59.44 208.28 3.12 62.40 110.17 21.58 2.52 8.39 2.08 1.77 50.92
2007 0.57 9.69 337.98 1.85 36.22 1.80 9.78 70.58 197.96 4.47 65.28 107.62 23.94 3.21 10.73 2.22 1.87 55.25
2008 0.34 9.71 281.03 1.61 30.19 1.75 10.44 97.34 312.55 4.56 74.75 128.72 22.02 3.13 9.51 2.40 1.77 57.01
2009 0.70 12.95 294.41 2.72 36.75 2.95 10.91 97.85 233.34 4.92 86.90 123.02 23.78 3.46 10.95 2.35 2.24 57.27
2010 0.74 13.26 278.06 3.16 37.46 2.86 13.54 118.26 328.08 8.10 105.10 137.92 30.34 3.93 14.01 2.50 2.48 62.48
2011 0.53 13.26 422.21 1.83 35.81 2.19 14.28 126.75 459.92 7.72 108.36 159.43 33.15 4.17 13.69 2.12 2.73 70.65
2012 0.87 13.54 394.43 3.09 51.88 3.12 17.25 162.22 585.27 11.43 123.85 171.72 35.00 4.53 14.29 2.07 1.78 60.82
2013 0.78 15.12 557.10 3.07 54.91 3.45 18.59 164.52 542.40 10.51 123.27 195.01 40.42 5.57 12.87 2.10 1.24 67.70
2014 0.66 12.85 420.82 3.13 48.14 3.26 20.01 166.32 489.88 11.17 127.00 203.23 37.98 5.42 9.55 2.12 0.86 60.33
2015 0.68 10.23 410.30 2.62 53.08 3.61 17.99 161.18 413.46 9.61 122.23 272.19 39.64 3.79 8.44 2.24 1.02 65.36
2016 0.60 11.60 365.35 2.25 48.04 3.75 18.28 160.38 413.05 10.74 124.76 279.65 45.53 3.75 9.59 1.93 0.49 57.43
Mean 0.53 9.50 221.67 1.81 27.13 2.23 8.80 70.16 244.32 4.53 62.84 112.46 22.17 2.30 8.17 2.11 1.79 47.00
Min 0.23 4.89 63.83 0.51 6.70 0.73 2.70 14.29 94.13 1.23 22.10 39.47 9.87 0.47 3.90 1.75 0.49 21.72
Max 1.08 15.12 557.10 3.16 54.91 3.75 20.01 166.32 585.27 11.43 127.00 279.65 45.53 5.57 14.29 2.50 2.73 70.65
SD 0.21 3.01 143.16 0.85 16.43 0.86 5.91 57.32 152.31 3.64 39.92 68.88 10.83 1.64 3.13 0.20 0.54 13.94
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 7 of 17
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 7 of 18

Figure 2. Spatial
Figure locations
2. Spatial locationsofof
1818political
politicalentities
entities(PEs)
(PEs) across the Asian
across the AsianDrylands
DrylandsBelt
Belt(ADB).
(ADB).PEPE boundaries
boundaries areare overlaid
overlaid
on the
on the ecoregions
ecoregions ofofthe
theWorld
World Wildlife
Wildlife Fund
Fund(https://www.worldwildlife.org,
(https://www.worldwildlife.org,accessed on 10 July
accessed 2020).
on 10 JulyJO—Jordan; TR—
2020). JO—Jordan;
Turkey; SY—Syria;
TR—Turkey; SY—Syria; IQ—Iraq;
IQ—Iraq;IR—Iran;
IR—Iran;TM—Turkmenistan;
TM—Turkmenistan; AF—Afghanistan; UZ—Uzbekistan;
AF—Afghanistan; KZ—Kazakhstan;
UZ—Uzbekistan; TJ—
KZ—Kazakhstan;
Tajikistan; KG—Kyrgyzstan; XJ—Xinjiang; TB—Tibet; QH—Qinghai; GS—Gansu; NX—Ningxia; MN—Mongolia; IM—
TJ—Tajikistan; KG—Kyrgyzstan; XJ—Xinjiang; TB—Tibet; QH—Qinghai; GS—Gansu; NX—Ningxia; MN—Mongolia;
Inner Mongolia.
IM—Inner Mongolia.

Figure
Figure 3. Changes
3. Changes in in IMoSES
IMoSES for1818political
for politicalentities
entities (PEs)
(PEs) in
in the
the Asian
AsianDrylands
DrylandsBeltBelt(ADB) from
(ADB) 1992
from through
1992 2016.
through These
2016. These
PEs are arranged in four panels based on their maximum IMoSES values for easier visualization of the IMoSES
PEs are arranged in four panels based on their maximum IMoSES values for easier visualization of the IMoSES dynamics. dynamics.
The abbreviations match those in Figure 2.
The abbreviations match those in Figure 2.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 8 of 17 8 of 18

Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 8 of 18

FigureFigure
4. Boxplots of IMoSES
4. Boxplots of (a) and its(a)
IMoSES three
and components, GDPpc (b), POP
its three components, GDPd (c), and HANPP (d) for the 18 political entities
pc (b), POPd (c), and HANPP (d) for
(PEs) during 1992–2016. κ = 1. Because there are large differences in IMoSES among the PEs, the square root transformation
the 18 political entities (PEs) during 1992–2016. κ = 1. Because there are large differences in IMoSES
of IMoSES
Figure 4. Boxplots of IMoSES (a) is
andpresented
its three in panel (a) toGDP
components, show per capita relationships. See Figure 2 for PE locations and abbreviations.
pc (b), POPd (c), and HANPP (d) for the 18 political entities
among the PEs, the square root transformation of IMoSES is presented in panel (a) to show per capita
(PEs) during 1992–2016. κ = 1. Because there are large differences in IMoSES among the PEs, the square root transformation
relationships.
of IMoSES is presented in panel (a) to show See Figurerelationships.
per capita 2 for PE locations and2 abbreviations.
See Figure for PE locations and abbreviations.

Figure 5. Changes of IMoSES with the Palmer Drought Severity Index (a) and the Human Develop‐
ment Index (b) for the 18 political entities during 1992–2016. IMoSES is calculated with κ = 1 (Equa‐
Figure Changes
Figure5.5.Changes of IMoSES
tions
of IMoSES with with
(3)–(5)).the the Palmer
ThePalmer
dashed Drought
blue lines
Drought Severity
are theIndex
Severity predicted Index
mean
(a) and (a) andfrom
the values
Human theaHuman
quadraticDevel-
Develop‐ and exponential
opment
ment IndexIndex
(b) for(b)
thefor the 18 political
18 political entities
entities during during IMoSES
1992–2016. 1992–2016. IMoSES
is calculated is calculated
with κ = 1 (Equa‐ with κ = 1
tions (3)–(5)). (3)–(5)).
(Equations The dashed bluedashed
The lines areblue
the predicted
lines aremean
the values from mean
predicted a quadratic
values exponential
andfrom a quadratic and
exponential model, respectively. The red lines define the upper limits of IMoSES—the historical
potentials for different PDSI or HDI levels. The difference between IMoSES and its potential is called
the IMoSES deficit. A few exceptional values greater than the regional maximum are apparent, which
may be driven by other forces (e.g., global influences).
 Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 9 of 18

model, respectively. The red lines define the upper limits of IMoSES—the historical potentials for
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 different PDSI or HDI levels. The difference between IMoSES and its potential is called the IMoSES 9 of 17
deficit. A few exceptional values greater than the regional maximum are apparent, which may be
driven by other forces (e.g., global influences).

Figure
Figure6.6.Boxplots of of
Boxplots IMoSES at the
IMoSES prefectural
at the level level
prefectural for thefor
four
thepolitical entities entities
four political (PEs) in (PEs)
2016 (a)
in 2016
and the PE mean values of HDI and SDI in 2015 (b). Note the similar values between IM
(a) and the PE mean values of HDI and SDI in 2015 (b). Note the similar values between IM and MN and MN
but different values between KZ and UZ.
but different values between KZ and UZ.

1.3.
1.3.IMoSES
IMoSESCalculation
Calculationand thethe
and Intermediate Variables
Intermediate Variables
IMoSES
IMoSESand andassociated
associatedintermediate
intermediate variables are are
variables based on six
based oninput variables:
six input land land
variables:
area (A) of the administrative unit (e.g., country), GDP, POP, carbon price (USD
area (A) of the administrative unit (e.g., country), GDP, POP, carbon price (USD Mg), GPP, Mg), GPP,
and
andPET
PET(potential
(potentialevapotranspiration)
evapotranspiration) associated
associated with the the
with administrative
administrativeunit.unit.
Multiple
Multiple
intermediate variables can be calculated to reflect synchronized SES
intermediate variables can be calculated to reflect synchronized SES functioning,functioning, such such
as as
GDP pc, GPPpc, POPd and ecosystem water use efficiency (WUE). We used the historical
GDPpc , GPPpc , POPd and ecosystem water use efficiency (WUE). We used the historical
input
inputdata
data(1992–2016)
(1992–2016)ofof
Mongolia
Mongolia andandInner Mongolia
Inner Mongolia for the
for calculations and values
the calculations of
and values of
IMoSES and the intermediate variables (Figure 1).
IMoSES and the intermediate 2variables (Figure 1).
Mongolia (1.57 million km ) 2and Inner Mongolia (1.15 million km2) are2 jurisdictions
Mongolia (1.57 million km ) and Inner Mongolia (1.15 million km ) are jurisdictions
with similar ecological systems but contrasting socioeconomic systems on the Mongolian
with similar ecological systems but contrasting socioeconomic systems on the Mongo-
Plateau. The political separation of the two in the 1920s, coupled with Chinese and Soviet
lian Plateau. The political separation of the two in the 1920s, coupled with Chinese
influences, has caused a significant divergence in their human demographic and socioec‐
and Soviet influences, has caused a significant divergence in their human demographic
onomic conditions [20]. The divergence of these SESs was attributed to the collapse of the
and socioeconomic
USSR in 1991 and the conditions [20]. Thedevelopment
rapid economic divergence of of these
ChinaSESs
sincewas
theattributed
mid‐1990sto the
collapse of the USSR in 1991 and the rapid economic development of China since the mid-
1990s [20,25,34,39]. During 1992–2016, the population and GDP of Inner Mongolia (IM)
and Mongolia (MN) grew similarly, with approximately 10-fold and 7-fold higher levels in
IM, respectively. The GPP and PET of IM are much higher than those of MN, though the
patterns of interannual variation are similar. As a result of these differences, the population
density of MN is ~8% of IM. Interestingly, the GDPpc of MN before 1996 was higher than
that of IM, but the relatively slow growth in MN resulted in a difference of 6486 USD lower
than IM in 2016. Due to the high population density, GPPpc of IM is ~16% of MN. Finally,
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 10 of 17

the ecosystem water use efficiency of IM is much higher than that in MG. In 2016 WUE was
0.37 for IM and 0.23 for MN. When the input variables are applied for calculating IMoSES
for IM and MN, consistently higher values appear for MN than IM. In 2016, IMoSES of MN
was 413.0 USD2 pers−2 yr−2 mm−2 versus 160.4 USD2 pers−2 yr−2 mm−2 for IM. More
importantly, the differences in temporal changes of IMoSES for the two SESs seemed very
different from those of all input and intermediate variables (Figure 1). If higher IMoSES
values indicate better SES functioning, then MN had been performing consistently higher
than IM, with the difference growing in the most recent decade. However, this conclusion
could not be made from any input and intermediate variables.

1.4. The Uses of IMoSES

These models (Equations (3)–(5)) are based on assumptions that GDP is an appro-
priate measure of economic production (Equation (1)). GDP, the value of the final goods
and services produced in a country, has been widely used to indicate how a nation’s
economy is doing [44]. Inflation is considered to produce an adjusted standard for cross-
country comparison (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPP, accessed on
10 July 2020). Nevertheless, due to its exclusive focus on production, GDP has a limited
capacity to represent progress and well-being [45]. Simon Kuznets has argued that the
welfare of a country cannot be judged by GDP alone [46], and others have called GDP
an overly simplistic monetary measure that represents economic growth rather economic
development and noted that it does not represent well-being and other aspects of human
development [45,47,48]. For these reasons, other indicators of economic strength, such as
purchasing power parity (PPP), foreign direct investment (FDI), grain production, livestock
production, have emerged. These alternative variables can be used effectively to indicate
the achievement of certain goals (e.g., sustainability of agricultural systems). Still, GDP
values have been widely reported by countries since the 1950s, while these other indicators
may be limited by a lack of available data until recent years or some countries. Similar chal-
lenges may also exist for the selection of a sound measure for ecosystem production in our
conceptual model (Equations (1) and (2)). As our first task in this paper, we used ecosystem
primary production (i.e., GPP or NPP) to demonstrate the overall concept, partially because
of its availability across countries and over long time periods. However, other metrics
for measuring ecosystem functioning, such as net ecosystem production (NEP), carbon
storage, species diversity, and valuations of other ecosystem services [9,49] could be used
in Equations (3)–(5). Here, we focus on the conceptual foundation (Equation (1)) and the
potential usefulness of IMoSES as an integrated measure of the SES function. We propose to
include a set of input variables (e.g., Area, GDP, GPP, POP, etc.) and intermediate variables
(e.g., POPd , GDPpc , GPPpc , WUE, etc.) (Figure 1). Like any physical and social system, one
cannot rely solely on a single metric to quantify system function, even an integrated metric.
Similar practices of both integrative and specific property measures are very common in
studying weather systems (e.g., temperature and precipitation), social systems (e.g., age
structure vs. HDI), and ecosystem (e.g., NEP vs. carbon allocation) and can elucidate new
understanding of system functions. In sum, applications of IMoSES should be made in the
context of all conventional measures of each pillar of the system, as well as the intermediate
variables (e.g., HANPP).

1.5. Practical Questions

Here we challenge ourselves with a fundamental question: Is the new metric mean-
ingful and useful in modeling SES functioning? We tackle this important question by
answering three specific questions: (1) Is IMoSES sensitive to the differences among the
PEs and to time at the annual or decadal scale? If not, IMoSES will not be a useful metric
describing SES function and dynamics. (2) Does IMoSES provide any new insights from
its three components that describe social, economic, and environmental systems? We
expect that the changes of IMoSES over time and among the SESs are different from its
components (i.e., GDPpc, NPP, HANPP, POPd, WUE, etc.). (3) Is IMoSES meaningful when
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 11 of 17

compared with other independent measures of SES properties (e.g., HDI, PDSI, SDI, etc.)?
We expect that IMoSES can indicate similar but different aspects of SES functioning.

2. IMoSES of the Asian Drylands Belt

To illustrate this new metric, we used information in a database from Chen et al.,
(2020) [50] for the countries in the Asian Drylands Belt (ADB) to calculate IMoSES and
its terms for two purposes. First, we examine if IMoSES provides new insights for the
SESs over those obtained using traditional measures, such as GDPpc and HANPP, and
other metrics used in the natural and social sciences (cf. Table 1). Second, we compare
the magnitude and dynamics of IMoSES among the political entities (PEs). Here, we
designate the ADB to include 18PEs, covering 14,380,099 km2 (approximately 30◦ N–55◦ N;
30◦ E–120◦ E): Afghanistan (AF), Gansu (GS), Inner Mongolia (IM), Iran (IR), Iraq (IQ),
Jordan (JO), Kazakhstan (KZ), Kyrgyzstan (KG), Mongolia (MN), Ningxia (NX), Qinghai
(QH), Syria (SY), Tajikistan (TJ), Tibet (TB), Turkey (TR), Turkmenistan (TM), Uzbekistan
(UZ), and Xinjiang (XJ). In this database, six Chinese provinces are treated as separate PEs
due to their large land areas, positions in arid and semiarid regions, and unique cultures
and economic conditions compared to other provinces of China. The database spans a time
period of 25 years (1992–2016) (Figure 3). To demonstrate the utility of IMoSES at finer
administrative levels, four PEs with annual provincial statistics during 2000–2016 were
used. (Note: Provinces are equivalent to oblasts in KZ, vilayets in UZ, aimags in MN, and
prefectures in IM).
Since IMoSES is a newly proposed metric for SES function and dynamics, we first com-
pare the magnitude and variation of IMoSES with its major components in Equations (3)–(5)
that reflect major economic, environmental, and social aspects. We then explore the vari-
ation of IMoSES with a few selected metrics that have been widely applied in studies of
drylands SES: Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), HDI, and SDI. HDI is among the
few social indicators of social systems; whereas PDSI provides an integrative measure of
drought severity—the most important forcing for the drylands regions.
Water rather than energy is the most limiting resource in the ADB countries and is conse-
quently used as the “resource input” in calculating IMoSES in this paper (Equations (3)–(5)).
While the total precipitation of a country is typically used as a proxy for water supply, we
argue that total water loss through evapotranspiration (ET, mm yr−1 ) in drylands better
reflects the available water supporting the social, economic and ecological systems (i.e., the
three pillars), particularly because the long-term changes in precipitation across the global
terrestrial biosphere have been stable since 1880 [51,52].

3. Empirical Evidence for IMoSES Applications

The overall mean (and SD) of IMoSES for the 18 PEs over the 25-year study period is
47.19 (90.09) USD2 yr−2 pers−2 mm−1 , with the lowest value of 0.23 USD2 yr−2 pers−2 mm−1
for Afghanistan in 2001 and the highest of 585.27 USD2 yr−2 pers−2 mm−1 for Mongolia
in 2012 (Table 2). Ten PEs (AF, TJ, KG, UZ, GS, NX, IQ, IR, JO and SY) have IMoSES
of < 10.0 USD2 yr−2 pers−2 mm−1 ; whereas three PEs (KZ, MN, and TB) have IMoSES
of > 100.0 USD2 yr−2 pers−2 mm−1 . Among the three sub-regions of the ADB, IMoSES is
the lowest for the Middle East (12.27 ± 18.70 USD2 yr−2 pers−2 mm−1 ) and the highest for
East Asia (75.04 ± 103.15 USD2 yr−2 pers−2 mm−1 ). However, these sub-regional IMoSES
are highly skewed by a few comparatively more affluent PEs. For example, other than Kaza-
khstan, all other countries in Central Asia have IMoSES of < 27.13 USD2 yr−2 pers−2 mm−1 .
Similarly, the IMoSES for East Asia is skewed by Mongolia and Tibet; whereas Turkey’s
high IMoSES elevates the overall mean value for the Middle East. While this paper is not
designed to assess all the nuances of performance of SES among countries of the ADB re-
gion, numerous publications indicate that Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria have been hindered
in their SES development by frequent geopolitical conflicts, whereas Turkey, Kazakhstan,
Mongolia, and some parts of China experienced steady growth of their SES [39,53]. The
large ranges of IMoSES values indicate that this new integrative metric is sensitive to
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 12 of 17

PE and varies in time – a promising sign because a lack of sensitivity would point to an
indicator of little practical value for tracking SES dynamics. However, future efforts are
needed to calculate IMoSES for a broader range of countries and different time periods so
we may examine the relative positions of countries and regions in a global context.
To answer the first question (i.e., Is IMoSES sensitive to the differences among the PEs
and to time at the annual or decadal scale?), we can examine the magnitude and variation
of IMoSES among the 18 PEs across the ADB region. There appears to be a general increase
in IMoSES over the 25-year study period for all 18 PEs, albeit with temporal variation
(Figure 4). IMoSES values in all PEs, except Iraq and six provinces of China, decreased
during the 1990s. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to detail the causal
underlying mechanisms driving the observed changes, the decreasing and rebounding of
IMoSES values for the five countries in Central Asia and Mongolia are likely due to the
formal disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the profound socio-economic and
biogeophysical consequences of this profound shift in institutions [50,54]. For example,
Kazakhstan is heavily reliant on trade with Russia, so the decline in IMoSES after 2013 likely
reflects the impacts of international sanctions on Russia following the invasion of Crimea in
2014. For Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran, we can speculate that a period of intensifying violence
in Iraq related to the Islamic State (BBC 2018; https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-
east-14546763), accessed on 1 June 2020), as well as the Gulf Wars (1990–1991) and Iraq–Iran
conflicts (1980–1988) that may have degraded the functioning of their SES. Syria presents
an interesting case: it showed decreases in the early 1990s—comparable to other Middle
East countries—but exhibited stable and increasing IMoSES values during 2001–2011. A
sharp decrease appeared after 2011 (Figure 4a), which corresponds well to the beginning of
the civil war from 2011 onwards. As expected, the steady increases in IMoSES for the six
PEs in China corresponded well to the accession of China to the World Trade Organization
(WTO) in 2001 [25,30]. The differences among Chinese PEs might be further explained
by various policies of the central government, including the drive to promote economic
development in China’s western regions [55,56]. Clearly, institutional changes (including
new policies, cross-country geopolitical conflicts, etc.) can have strong and lasting effects
on IMoSES [29,30,57]. More importantly, the sensitivity of IMoSES to institutional changes
further suggests IMoSES is a useful measure for quantifying SES dynamics.
For the second question (i.e., Does IMoSES provide any new insights from its three
components that describe social, economic, and environmental systems?), we can compare
IMoSES with three dominant components at PE and sub-region levels: GDPpc , POPd
and HANPP (Equations (3)–(5)). In this regard, we compared the long-term mean (SD)
of IMoSES with GDPpc , POPd and HANPP for the 18 PEs (Figure 4). The means and
variations of IMoSES are very different from those of any three components among the PEs.
By definition, IMoSES has a positive relationship with GDPpc and HANPP, but a negative
relationship with POPd (Equations (1)–(4)). These relationships appear consistent, albeit
with large differences among the PEs. Overall, Turkey, Kazakhstan, and Mongolia are the
top three PEs for their IMoSES, which matches well with their relatively high HANPP
(Figure 4d) and low POPd (Figure 4c). However, the high IMoSES for Kazakhstan is due
to high GDPpc and low POPd ; whereas Mongolia and Turkey have relatively low GDPpc .
Among the PEs with low IMoSES, GDPpc and HANPP are comparatively lower while POPd
is high. Increased IMoSES values can arise from rising GDPpc and HANPP and declining
POPd over long time periods, except in times of armed conflict or a pandemic. In conclusion,
we are convinced that IMoSES provides insights that none of the three components alone do.
More importantly, the metric provides policymakers with some idea about the dynamics
of each of the pillars, which can be used to identify SES dimensions requiring additional
research and perhaps policy attention to move PEs toward improved and more sustainable
IMoSES. For example, lessons from the different rebounding processes of Central Asian
countries and Mongolia could identify constraining mechanisms in slowly recovering
countries after the collapse of the USSR (Figure 3).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 13 of 17

To address the utility of IMoSES in our third question (i.e., Is IMoSES meaningful
when compared with other independent measures of SES properties?), we examine its
relationships with other integrative measures of SES: (1) PDSI, which is an effective mea-
sure of environmental stress, and (2) HDI, which is a robust indicator of social conditions
(Figure 5). We caution that PDSI is calculated with some common variables (e.g., tempera-
ture and precipitation), suggesting that IMoSES is not completely independent of PDSI.
Overall, IMoSES increases with PDSI in dry-to-normal conditions (PDSI < 0) and decreases
in normal-to-wet conditions (PDSI > 0) (Figure 5a). The changes in IMoSES with PDSI
are similar to the environmental Kuznets curve depicting the relationship between envi-
ronmental degradation and economic development [58]. IMoSES rises to its peak where
water stress is minimal (i.e., not too dry or wet), after which, IMoSES declines as conditions
become wetter (Figure 5a). This behavior suggests that deviations from the average PDSI
for a region are negatively associated with SES functioning. More importantly, we used a
quadratic model to estimate the upper envelope of values in the scatterplots—the potential
maximum IMoSES for ADB countries. Each data point (i.e., a country or PE in a specific
year) defines its current position and deficit from IMoSES potential for improvement. By
comparing the theoretical potentials with the actual IMoSES values, it is clear that some
PEs may have reached their potentials in the past, while the majority of PEs had much
lower values regardless of drought severity (i.e., high deficits), suggesting that there is
room for most countries to improve.
IMoSES exhibits an exponential relationship with HDI (Figure 5b); this strong rela-
tionship demonstrates its new potential to reflect the human dimensions of SES. However,
GDPpc is a large portion of GNIpc that was used to calculate HDI, indicating that the rela-
tionship is not completely independent. Nevertheless, the clear exponential relationship
between IMoSES and HDI suggests that IMoSES reflects some values of HDI; otherwise,
the relationship would not exist. We also built an exponential model for the upper envelope
of IMoSES values as the historical maximum (i.e., the potentials). IMoSES deficit—the
difference from maximum IMoSES—would then indicate the improvement level that could
be achieved if the goal is to reach a high IMoSES. Based on the historical data, some ex-
ceptional values appear that may have resulted from policy shifts, unique SES structure,
global influences, and other driving forces (also see Figure 3).
To demonstrate the use of IMoSES at other administrative levels, we calculated IMoSES
using the provincial statistics of four PEs and compared them with HDI and SDI (Figure 6).
Provincial statistics from two pairs of PEs in 2016, with one from East Asia (IM and
MN) and one from Central Asia (KZ and UZ), were collected. Among the four PEs, the
highest mean (SD) USD2 yr−2 pers−2 mm−1 of 16.03 (6.55) was found for Kazakhstan
and the lowest of 1.03 (1.15) for Uzbekistan. Between Mongolia and Inner Mongolia, a
higher IMoSES was found for Mongolia than for Inner Mongolia, which is likely due to
the much higher (> 10×) population density in Inner Mongolia. POPd in Uzbekistan is
11.4 times that of Kazakhstan (Figure 4c). One of the reasons for its comparatively low
IMoSES however is that Kazakhstan has higher revenues from mining and oil and gas
production than Uzbekistan (https://databank.worldbank.org, accessed on 1 June 2020).
More importantly, IMoSES mirrors positive and negative patterns with HDI and SDI,
respectively (Figure 6b), displaying that the correlations are not linear (see Figure 5). Both
SDI and HDI in Kazakhstan are lower than in Uzbekistan, making IMoSES different from
HDI and SDI. Future efforts are needed to examine the changes in IMoSES with other
integrative measures, such as the Gini Coefficient and renewable energy/total energy,
environmental sustainability index, etc. [5,10,59].
Our empirical evidence from the ADB region suggests that IMoSES is a truly in-
tegrative measure of SES function and dynamics. Despite widespread adoption of the
concept of SES as a framework for studying coupled systems, more often systems are
studied via uncoupled metrics. IMoSES is a product of GDPpc and HANPP, rather than
the linear sum of three components that is applied in other integrative indicators (e.g.,
HDI). The square root converts IMoSES into a measure of SES performance per capita
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 14 of 17

(USD2 yr−2 pers−2 mm−1 ). With a unit of mm yr−1 for ET, IMoSES represents the water
use efficiency of the SES. The use of the κ parameter provides an option for emphasizing
the strength of ET regulations. An alternative expression is about SES performance (i.e.,
the product of GDPpc and POPd ) that is regulated by ecosystem WUE. Our equations also
address the lack of an environmental regulatory function in the HDI formula [13]. Other
energy or natural resources could replace ET as the ecological foundation for an SES.
Historical data based on 18 PEs across the ADB (1992–2016) and on subnational
scales in four countries for 2016 show that the IMoSES captures different aspects of SES
function and dynamics. Although the IMoSES values and changes over time will be
different when more countries are included, the unit of USD2 yr−2 pers−2 mm−1 , or
USD yr−1 pers−1 mm−1 , will remain the same and permit direct comparisons between PEs.
An effort to calculate IMoSES for all countries globally will tell us about their magnitudes,
differences, changes over time, and potentials. However, attention is needed to identify the
appropriate values of κ and apply them consistently for comparisons among countries and
over time. PDSI, HDI and SDI are used as the two independent metrics to demonstrate
the effectiveness of IMoSES. The strong correlations with PDSI indicate that IMoSES
changes with environmental conditions, similar to the idea behind the environmental
Kuznets curve.
These results present several avenues for future research. First, it is necessary to inves-
tigate why other environmental indicators in place of PDSI, HDI and SDI (e.g., temperature,
precipitation, CO2 emission, N2 O emission, land use, etc.) exhibit different relationships
with IMoSES, in order to explore how well IMoSES aligns with various indicators of envi-
ronmental vitality [60]. Second, research on the relationship between IMoSES and other
social indicators (e.g., life expectancy, educational attainment, gender equality) would
increase understanding of the alignment between GDP and aspects of social well-being that
together encapsulate the idea of economic development. Three, the metric we developed
may be useful for the assessment of progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs; https://sdgs.un.org/goals, accessed on 1 June 2020) by tracking the temporal
trajectories of IMoSES across countries during the recent past to reveal how this concept
maps onto SDG progress for specific countries. Specifically, our metric can be related to
a number of goals, including ending poverty and promoting decent work and economic
growth, human wellbeing, and climate action. Relatedly, more efforts are needed to explore
if integrated metrics, including IMoSES, can be used in policy development and decision
making. Here, lagging components of the metric can be selected for additional analysis
and policy development. For example, stagnant or declining GDP relative to the other
two-pillar components may suggest a need for policy action to raise domestic income.
Stagnant or declining NPP relative to the other two indicators may indicate a need for
policies to improve the environmental conditions of PEs. Future research could also extend
the calculation and analysis of IMoSES to other countries, regions, biomes, or development
stages (e.g., higher-income countries vs. lower-to-middle income countries) [61]. A poten-
tial revision of the proposed IMoSES is to standardize its values through normalization for
a given scale (e.g., by region, continent, or time period). These steps would enable us to
group countries by IMoSES in a way that is akin to “convergence clubs” in economics—by
identifying countries that exhibit similar growth trajectories [62]. We provided preliminary
evidence that “IMoSES clubs” are likely, as distinct over- and under-performers were
evident within the three regional categories of ADB PEs (East Asia, Central Asia, and the
Middle East). Among the Middle Eastern countries, Turkey had higher IMoSES than other
countries in its group. In Central Asia, Kazakhstan had the highest IMoSES. From a global
perspective, it would be important to identify countries with similar IMoSES trajectories,
which are indicative of similar dynamics among the three pillars of sustainability.

4. Conclusions
Fostering sustainable development involves navigating and responding to a myriad
of hazards and limiting exposure to high-risk events and consequences. At the same time,
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 15 of 17

political entities need to foster and support human development in the face of environ-
mental variation and extreme events. IMoSES offers a new lens to assist in balancing these
complex, contingent tradeoffs between various ecosystem services, economic productivity,
wealth creation and distribution, and their latent impact on human health and well-being.
We used public data from ADB countries to illustrate the utility of the IMoSES—an inte-
grative metric as the product of economic and ecosystem production efficiency, although
we do not know how well this metric captures SES dynamics elsewhere and at different
spatial (e.g., global, continental, biome) and temporal (e.g., annual, years, and decades)
scales. Future research will extend calculation and analysis of IMoSES to other countries,
regions, biomes, or development stages economic status (e.g., global south vs. developed
countries higher-income countries vs. lower to middle-income countries) [61]. A poten-
tial revision of the proposed IMoSES is to standardize its values through normalizations
for a given scale. These steps would enable us to group countries by IMoSES in a way
that is akin to “convergence clubs” in economics—by identifying countries that exhibit
similar growth trajectories [62].

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.C. (Jiquan Chen); methodology, J.C. (Jiquan Chen), Z.O.,
R.J. and C.S.; software, Z.O. and R.J.; formal analysis, J.C. (Jiquan Chen), Z.O. and R.J.; investigation,
R.J., E.A.M. and G.R.H.A.; data curation, R.J., C.S., G.D., L.T., F.Z., J.C. (Jingyan Chen), E.A.M. and
M.K.; writing—original draft preparation, J.C. (Jiquan Chen), E.A.M. and R.J.; writing—review and
editing, E.A.M., G.M.H., G.R.H.A., A.L.P., P.F., G.E.S., D.E.R., D.P.R. and M.A.; visualization, Z.O. and
G.M.H.; project administration, J.C. (Jiquan Chen); funding acquisition, J.C. and G.M.H. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was funded in part by the NASA LCLUC program (80NSSC20K0410, 80NSSC20K
0411, 80NSSC20K0740), the Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems (CNH) Program of
the National Science Foundation (#1313761); National Key Research and Development Program of
China (2019YFC0507801, 2019YFC0507805).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable, as the study did not involve any human subjects.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable as the study does not contain sensitive human subject
data, only publicly available data.
Data Availability Statement: All data used in this paper are open to the public. Specific URL
addresses are provided in Table 1.
Acknowledgments: We thank Kristine Blakeslee for copy editing the manuscript. We appreciated
comments from De-Hui Zeng for the fruitful discussions that helped to complete this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: We declare no conflict of interest or competing interest.

References
1. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford,
UK, 1987; p. 27.
2. Hancock, T. Health, human development and the community ecosystem: Three ecological models. Health Promot. Int. 1993,
8, 41–47. [CrossRef]
3. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island,
BC, Canada, 1998.
4. Hansmann, R.; Mieg, H.A.; Frischknecht, P. Principal sustainability components: Empirical analysis of synergies between the
three pillars of sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2012, 19, 451–459. [CrossRef]
5. Holden, E.; Linnerud, K.; Banister, D. Sustainable development: Our common future revisited. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014,
26, 130–139. [CrossRef]
6. Schlüter, M.; Haider, L.J.; Lade, S.J.; Lindkvist, E.; Martin, R.; Orach, K.; Wijermans, N.; Folke, C. Capturing emergent phenomena
in social-ecological systems: An analytical framework. Ecol. Soc. 2019, 24. [CrossRef]
7. Dietz, T.; Rosa, E.A. Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1997, 94, 175. [CrossRef]
8. Redman, C.L.; Grove, J.M.; Kuby, L.H. Integrating social science into the long-term ecological research (LTER) network: Social
dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems 2004, 7, 161–171. [CrossRef]
9. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 16 of 17

10. Babcicky, P. Rethinking the foundations of sustainability measurement: The limitations of the environmental sustainability index
(ESI). Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 113, 133–157. [CrossRef]
11. Wilson, M.C.; Wu, J. The problems of weak sustainability and associated indicators. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2017,
24, 44–51. [CrossRef]
12. Bell, S.; Morse, S. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2008.
13. Hickel, J. The sustainable development index: Measuring the ecological efficiency of human development in the anthropocene.
Ecol. Econ. 2020, 167, 106331. [CrossRef]
14. Martínez-Fernández, J.; Banos-González, I.; Esteve-Selma, M.Á. An integral approach to address socio-ecological systems
sustainability and their uncertainties. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 762, 144457. [CrossRef]
15. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. The GDP paradox. J. Econ. Psychol. 2009, 30, 117–135. [CrossRef]
16. Bleys, B. Beyond GDP: Classifying alternative measures for progress. Soc. Indic. Res. 2012, 109, 355–376. [CrossRef]
17. Islam, S.M.N.; Clarke, M. The relationship between economic development and social welfare: A new adjusted GDP measure of
welfare. Soc. Indic. Res. 2002, 57, 201–229. [CrossRef]
18. Vitousek, P.M.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Ehrlich, A.H.; Matson, P.A. Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. BioScience 1986,
36, 368–373. [CrossRef]
19. Haberl, H. Human appropriation of net primary production as an environmental indicator: Implications for sustainable
development. Ambio 1997, 26, 143–146.
20. Rojstaczer, S.; Sterling, S.M.; Moore, N.J. Human appropriation of photosynthesis products. Science 2001, 294, 2549. [CrossRef]
21. Barton, E.M.; Pearsall, D.R.; Currie, W.S. Human appropriated net primary productivity as a metric for land use planning: A case
study in the US Great Lakes region. Landsc. Ecol. 2020, 35, 1323–1339. [CrossRef]
22. Krausmann, F.; Erb, K.-H.; Gingrich, S.; Haberl, H.; Bondeau, A.; Gaube, V.; Lauk, C.; Plutzar, C.; Searchinger, T.D. Global human
appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th century. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 10324. [CrossRef]
23. Lu, D.; Xu, X.; Tian, H.; Moran, E.; Zhao, M.; Running, S. The effects of urbanization on net primary productivity in southeastern
China. Environ. Manag. 2010, 46, 404–410. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Fan, P.; Chen, J.; Ouyang, Z.; Groisman, P.; Loboda, T.; Gutman, G.; Prishchepov, A.V.; Kvashnina, A.; Messina, J.; Moore, N.;
et al. Urbanization and sustainability under transitional economies: A synthesis for Asian Russia. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018,
13, 095007. [CrossRef]
25. Chen, J.; John, R.; Zhang, Y.; Shao, C.; Brown, D.G.; Batkhishig, O.; Amarjargal, A.; Ouyang, Z.; Dong, G.; Wang, D.; et al.
Divergences of two coupled human and natural systems on the Mongolian Plateau. BioScience 2015, 65, 559–570. [CrossRef]
26. Tian, L.; Gong, Q.; Chen, J. Coupled dynamics of socioeconomic and environmental systems in Tibet. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018,
13, 034001. [CrossRef]
27. Imhoff, M.L.; Bounoua, L.; Ricketts, T.; Loucks, C.; Harriss, R.; Lawrence, W.T. Global patterns in human consumption of net
primary production. Nature 2004, 429, 870–873. [CrossRef]
28. Haberl, H.; Erb, K.-H.; Krausmann, F. Human appropriation of net primary production: Patterns, trends, and planetary
boundaries. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2014, 39, 363–391. [CrossRef]
29. Ostrom, E. Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Stud. J. 2011, 39, 7–27. [CrossRef]
30. Chen, J.; John, R.; Shao, C.; Fan, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Amarjargal, A.; Brown, D.G.; Qi, J.; Han, J.; Lafortezza, R.; et al. Policy shifts
influence the functional changes of the CNH systems on the Mongolian plateau. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 085003. [CrossRef]
31. United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Human Development Report 2019; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
32. Böhringer, C.; Jochem, P.E.P. Measuring the immeasurable—A survey of sustainability indices. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 1–8. [CrossRef]
33. Safriel, U.; Adeel, Z. Development paths of drylands: Thresholds and sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 2008, 3, 117–123. [CrossRef]
34. Moldan, B.; Janoušková, S.; Hák, T. How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets.
Ecol. Indic. 2012, 17, 4–13. [CrossRef]
35. Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2013,
28, 999–1023. [CrossRef]
36. Groisman, P.; Bulygina, O.; Henebry, G.; Speranskaya, N.; Shiklomanov, A.; Chen, Y.; Tchebakova, N.; Parfenova, E.; Tilinina, N.;
Zolina, O.; et al. Dryland belt of Northern Eurasia: Contemporary environmental changes and their consequences. Environ. Res.
Lett. 2018, 13, 115008. [CrossRef]
37. Chen, J.; John, R.; Sun, G.; Fan, P.; Henebry, G.M.; Fernández-Giménez, M.E.; Zhang, Y.; Park, H.; Tian, L.; Groisman, P.; et al.
Prospects for the sustainability of social-ecological systems (SES) on the Mongolian Plateau: Five critical issues. Environ. Res. Lett.
2018, 13, 123004. [CrossRef]
38. Qu, L.; Dong, G.; De Boeck, H.J.; Tian, L.; Chen, J.; Tang, H.; Xin, X.; Chen, J.; Hu, Y.; Shao, C. Joint forcing by heat waves
and mowing poses a threat to grassland ecosystems: Evidence from a manipulative experiment. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020,
31, 785–800. [CrossRef]
39. Gutman, G.; Chen, J.; Henebry, G.M.; Kappas, M. Landscape Dynamics of Drylands across Greater Central Asia: People, Societies and
Ecosystems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020.
40. Dong, G.; Zhao, F.; Chen, J.; Zhang, Y.; Qu, L.; Jiang, S.; Ochirbat, B.; Chen, J.; Xin, X.; Shao, C. Non-climatic component
provoked substantial spatiotemporal changes of carbon and water use efficiency on the Mongolian Plateau. Environ. Res. Lett.
2020, 15. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11246 17 of 17

41. Chen, J. Biophysical Models and Applications in Ecosystem Analysis; Michigan State University Press: East Lansing, MI, USA, 2021.
42. Quintas-Soriano, C.; Martín-López, B.; Santos-Martín, F.; Loureiro, M.; Montes, C.; Benayas, J.; García-Llorente, M. Ecosystem
services values in Spain: A meta-analysis. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 55, 186–195. [CrossRef]
43. Han, J.; Chen, J.; Miao, Y.; Wan, S. Multiple resource use efficiency (mRUE): A new concept for ecosystem production. Sci. Rep.
2016, 6, 37453. [CrossRef]
44. US Bureau of Economic Analysis (US BEA). Gross Domestic Product. 2021. Available online: https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/
gross-domestic-product. (accessed on 20 June 2020).
45. Ivković, A.F. Limitations of the GDP as a measure of progress and well-being. Ekon. Vjesn. Econviews Rev. Contemp. Bus. Entrep.
Econ. Issues 2016, 29, 257–272.
46. Kuznets, S. Inventive Activity: Problems of Definition and Measurement. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Eco-
nomic and Social Factors; Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research, Ed.; Princeton University Press:
Princeton, NJ, USA, 1962; pp. 19–52.
47. Stiglitz, J. Rethink GDP Fetish. 2009. Available online: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/guest/article_71
fad514-9caa-11de-9a00-001cc4c03286.html (accessed on 16 September 2021).
48. Schepelmann, P.; Goossens, Y.; Makipaa, A. Towards Sustainable Development: Alternatives to GDP for Measuring Progress; Wuppertal
Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy: Wuppertal, Germany, 2009.
49. Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al.
The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [CrossRef]
50. Chen, J.; Ouyang, Z.; John, R.; Henebry, G.M.; Groisman, P.Y.; Karnieli, A.; Pueppke, S.; Kussainova, M.; Amartuvshin, A.;
Tulobaev, A.; et al. Social-Ecological Systems Across the Asian Drylands Belt (ADB). In Landscape Dynamics of Drylands across
Greater Central Asia: People, Societies and Ecosystems; Gutman, G., Chen, J., Henebry, G.M., Kappas, M., Eds.; Springer International
Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 191–225.
51. Jung, M.; Reichstein, M.; Ciais, P.; Seneviratne, S.I.; Sheffield, J.; Goulden, M.L.; Bonan, G.; Cescatti, A.; Chen, J.; de Jeu, R.;
et al. Recent decline in the global land evapotranspiration trend due to limited moisture supply. Nature 2010, 467, 951–954.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Groisman, P.Y.; Legates, D.R. Documenting and detecting long-term precipitation trends: Where we are and what should be done.
Clim. Chang. 1995, 31, 601–622. [CrossRef]
53. Qi, J.; Xin, X.; John, R.; Groisman, P.; Chen, J. Understanding livestock production and sustainability of grassland ecosystems in
the Asian Dryland Belt. Ecol. Process. 2017, 6, 22. [CrossRef]
54. de Beurs, K.M.; Henebry, G.M. Land surface phenology, climatic variation, and institutional change: Analyzing agricultural land
cover change in Kazakhstan. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 89, 497–509. [CrossRef]
55. Xu, G.; Wu, J. Social-ecological transformations of Inner Mongolia: A sustainability perspective. Ecol. Process. 2016, 5, 23. [CrossRef]
56. Fang, X.; Wu, J.; He, C. Assessing human-environment system sustainability based on Regional Safe and Just Operating Space:
The case of the Inner Mongolia Grassland. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 116, 276–286. [CrossRef]
57. North, D.C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990.
58. Dinda, S. Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 49, 431–455. [CrossRef]
59. Siche, J.R.; Agostinho, F.; Ortega, E.; Romeiro, A. Sustainability of nations by indices: Comparative study between environmental
sustainability index, ecological footprint and the emergy performance indices. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 628–637. [CrossRef]
60. Musson, A. Combining sustainable development and economic attractiveness: Towards an indicator of sustainable attractiveness.
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 16, 127–162. [CrossRef]
61. Clark, W.C.; Dickson, N.M. Sustainability science: The emerging research program. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003,
100, 8059. [CrossRef]
62. Baumol, W.J. Productivity growth, convergence, and welfare: What the long-run data show. Am. Econ. Rev. 1986, 76, 1072–1085.
Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1816469. (accessed on 20 June 2020).