Hi

TT

a

ARRAA

KEHHIC

1

gt1ceaturcmBtS

parema

0d

Ecological Modelling 221 (2010) 2112–2117

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Modelling

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /eco lmodel

uman transformities in a global hierarchy: Emergy and scalen the production of people and culture

homas Abel ∗

zu Chi University, No. 67, Jieren St., Hualien, 97074, Taiwan

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 26 October 2009eceived in revised form 29 May 2010ccepted 31 May 2010vailable online 22 June 2010

a b s t r a c t

In emergy research, transformities are of fundamental importance. They are factors that are used toconvert the inputs to a process into emergy. Once placed in emergy units, the inputs to any process canthen be added together or compared. Furthermore, as a product of an emergy analysis, new transformitiesfor outputs can be used in other analyses. By this process the collection of known transformities grows,and subsequent emergy analyses become more accurate. Human labor is often a critical input to an

eywords:mergyuman transformitiesierarchy

nequality

emergy analysis. Transformities for humans have only been roughly estimated based on education level,and should be judged as first approximations. This paper refines the existing values for human services,using similar techniques, but with some different assumptions. The result is a larger range of humantransformities, expanded at both lower and upper ends that range from 7.53E4 to 7.53E13. There aremany applications of this knowledge, from improving empirical studies to expositions of hierarchy that

man

ulture more reliably “locate” huhierarchies.

. Introduction

Throughout his career, H.T. Odum pursued an understanding ofeneral systems of nature and humanity that focused on energy, itsransformation, and resulting self-organization in systems (Odum,971, 1983, 1996, 2007). In comparing energy transformation pro-esses, Odum discovered the need to account for differences innergy ‘quality’, to account for the fact that energy processes havevariety of inputs, which themselves were produced in processes

hat required greater or lesser amounts of prior work. Final prod-cts that required more work are higher in energy ‘quality’. Odumealized that energy outputs of diverse quality should not simply beompared in energy terms (joules, calories, etc.), but rather a neweasurement was needed that indicated the prior work required.

efore 1986, Odum called this ‘embodied energy’, but since thenhe term emergy, for ‘energy memory’ has been used (Odum, 1986;cienceman, 1987).

Today, the emergy concept has been applied in hundreds ofublished studies around the world, a number of which haveppeared in the pages of Ecological Modelling. Ecologists, engineers,

esource management professionals, mathematicians, ecological-conomists and researchers in many other disciplines use theseethods. The research to date has focused on evaluations of fuels,

griculture, industrial products, earth and atmosphere processes,

∗ Tel.: +886 3 8572677x3180, fax: +886 3 8573013.E-mail addresses: tabel@mail.tcu.edu.tw, ta.chh@msa.hinet.net.

304-3800/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.05.014

s, economic production, and information within energy transformation

© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

landscape phenomena, waste treatment, urbanization, and ecosys-tems of all kinds. While conceived to have universal utility as ameasure of energy processes of all kinds, only a handful of stud-ies have been directed specifically to the production of information(genetic or cultural) or to the production of people within theirculture and information setting. Fig. 1 shows one critical mea-surement, called ‘transformity’, a ratio of emergy to energy, whichwas calculated in each of these studies. Its units are Sej/J, or solaremjoules per joule. The great majority of human transformitiesare larger than most other transformities (for fuels, crops, etc., notincluded in Fig. 1). This is as predicted for hierarchies that developfrom energy transformation (Odum, 2007). It should further benoted that, in general, information types have a higher transfor-mity than people, which locates information furthest to the rightin energy transformation hierarchies. For example, in Fig. 1, humantransformities range from 1E7 to 1E9, while ‘native culture storage’,‘last book copy’, ‘human genetic flow’, and other DNA values are alllarger (further to the right).

For this discussion I will focus on the six data points at the bot-tom of Fig. 1. These come from one study that was published firstin Science (Odum, 1988), and then again included in Environmen-tal Accounting, which is Odum’s detailed exposition of the emergyconcept and its application (Odum, 1996, pp. 231–235). For clarity,

those data points have been graphed again in Fig. 2 in their ownhierarchy.

I will briefly review this study. As discussed regarding energy‘quality’ above, energies are not comparable, but emergies are. Anormal procedure is to add together all the emergy inputs to a pro-

T. Abel / Ecological Modelling 221 (2010) 2112–2117 2113

Fig. 1. Transformities for information and people. This figure is a graph of the pub-lished transformities that relate to humans or information (Native culture (Odum,1996, p. 236), Rainforest (Odum, 1996, pp. 222–226), DNA (Odum, 2007, p. 242–243),Education levels (Odum, 1988), LESO Students (Meillaud et al., 2005)). They rangefrom approximately 1E7 to 1E31 Sej/J. In general, and as expected in Odum’shierarchy theory (1996, p. 37), the information transformities are furthest to theright, while human transformities are to their left. Many more known transfor-mities have been calculated for trees, crops, animals, minerals, fuels, ecosystems,weather, tides, geologic uplift, and other processes, but they are not shown in thisfigure. Most would be found to the left of these numbers. The arrangement of datapoints on this figure and in Figs. 2 and 5 is intended to be suggestive of differences incounts of information bearing objects, differences in turnover time, and differencesin territory. In Odum’s many systems diagrams, it is the convention that objects ofgreatest territory, turnover time, and least number are shown to the right and cen-tered vertically. Those few objects have a territory that extends over all the others.In contrast, by convention, objects to the left are many in number, rapid in turnover,and each has a smaller territory. Therefore Odum’s systems diagrams frequentlyexhibit this triangle shape of an energy transformation hierarchy. The display ofdata in this graph is intended to suggest that hierarchy.

Fig. 2. Transformities for people grouped by level of education and knowledge. Thisgraph highlights the six data points from Odum (1988). Here it is easier to see thesignificant differences between these numbers. The means of their calculation isdiscussed in the text. Units are Sej/J. Again, as in Fig. 1, the pyramid shape is intendedto depict hierarchy. There are many persons represented by each data point on theleft, and each has a smaller territory of influence. On the right, there are fewer unitsfor each data point, and their territory of influence spans the entire hierarchy.

Fig. 3. The production of people in a process. In this typical ‘process’ systems object,many inputs are combined in a process that produces an output. Here the output is‘People’. Note that the inputs coming from the right are labeled ‘Information’. Calcu-

lating human transformities from this type of model is extremely difficult and wasnot attempted by Odum. It requires extensive theorizing about ‘cultural’ informa-tion and other inputs such as ‘workplace emergy’ that has not been accomplished(but is currently being explored in Abel, 2010).

cess (Sej) (unlike energy values, emergy values can be added), andthen divide that total by the energy output (J), giving the transfor-mity for the output product (Sej/J) (Fig. 3). Transformities make itpossible to place the products of any process on a graph, such asin Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, and thus locate them within an energy trans-formation hierarchy. In addition to being a conversion factor thatpermits environmental accounting, transformities are locations ina hierarchy that permit quick comparison.

Other principles can be applied in the estimation of transformi-ties. When detailed emergy inputs to a process are unknown, such

as the emergy inputs to each of the persons in a population, it ispossible to apply the principles of energy transformation hierar-chies to construct first order estimates of a range of transformitiesfor people (Fig. 4). In his Science article, Odum (1988) follows thisapproach.

Fig. 4. The production of people within a regional energy transformation hierar-chy. The shaded area is the total environmental–economic–human–informationalenergy transformation hierarchy of any region. Odum uses the total emergy of theregion (the United States in 1983) and assigns it to the human hierarchy, dividedprimarily by ‘educational attainment’. The result is the six scales shown, with trans-formities ranging roughly from E6 to E9 Sej/J.

2114 T. Abel / Ecological Modelling 221 (2010) 2112–2117

Table 1People counts and transformities. These transformity values from (Odum, 1988,p. 1138) are calculated as (7.85E24 Sej/yr)/(#Persons)*(2.82E9 J/Person/yr). Personcounts were from the ). Each level of educational attainment is treated as a separatescale in the system hierarchy, and thus the total emergy of the US can be assignedto each scale. Note that there is no obvious numerical relationship between thecounts of persons, and thus no simple reason that each of these sub-populationsshould receive the total US emergy of 7.85E24 Sej/yr. Note also that Odum’s finalscale contains one million persons, and no effort is made to further divide that scale.

Educational attainment People (millions) Transformity (E6 Sej/J)

Preschool 234 8.9School 83 24.6College 28 73.3Post-college learning 6 343.0

p2imclblgt

hhs

2

rit(pmaGeaviOeo2

noa‘oa

Table 2Goldthorp schema. An occupation-based indicator of socioeconomic hierarchy(Shaw et al., 2007).

Class Label

I Service class: higher (and employers of large organizations)II Service class: lowerIIIa Routine non-manual: higherIIIb Routine non-manual: lowerIVa Small proprietors with employeesIVb Self-employed workers in industryIVc Farmers/smallholdersV Foremen and techniciansVI Skilled manual

Public status 2? 1029.0Legacy 1? 2054.0

Using the US emergy budget for 1983, of 7.85E24 Sej/yr, a U.S.opulation of 234 million people, and an average metabolism of.82E9 J/Person/yr, Odum calculates the transformities for people

n a hierarchy of five scales, topped by an information transfor-ity that he calls a ‘legacy’. The numbers of people in the first four

ategories are data from the U.S. Census, and indicate the highestevel of schooling attained. The fifth and sixth categories appear toe estimates of persons attaining some public status, and persons

eaving some legacy in the form of “written or other memories ineneral use” (Odum, 1996, p. 232). He describes these categories inhis way:

A hierarchy of human information is given [in Fig. 2]. Many peo-ple at lower educational levels on the left are the basis for fewerpeople operating at higher levels. At the top of the hierarchyon the right are public leaders and others who are known tothe public and are shared information with a large territory ofsupport and influence (Odum, 1988, p. 1138).

Taken therefore as unique ‘scales’ in an energy transformationierarchy, the total emergy of the system can be divided by theuman energy outputs (2.82E9 J/Person/yr)*(# Persons) at eachcale, giving transformity values (Table 1).

. Issues and answers

A few questions should be raised before proceeding to myevised estimations. First, it should be recognized that while empir-cal census data is utilized, Odum’s calculations are based onheoretical assumptions about emergy flows to human ‘scales’Fig. 4), and about the use of ‘educational attainment’ for locatingeople in that hierarchy. He does not make empirical measure-ents of the emergy inputs to individual people or households,

s would typically be performed for process analyses (Fig. 3).iven the difficulty of attaining detailed personal or householdmergy flows for the large U.S. population, Odum’s study is indeedrough approximation, but one that has proven to be of great

alue for many other emergy analyses that include human labornputs. Again, the purpose of this paper is to offer revision todum’s approximation. The demonstration of a more thoroughvaluation must await a number of theoretical and method-logical innovations regarding households and information (Abel,010).

Furthermore, while widely utilized for evaluations of socioeco-omic hierarchy, ‘educational attainment’ is only one of a number

f popular measures (Shaw et al., 2007, p. 76). Is it the mostppropriate? It has the advantage of being an indicator of attained

information’, however, it does not embody the quality of a ‘chainf production’ that Odum is apparently envisioning when he states,bove, that people in lower education levels “are the basis for”

VIIa Semi- and unskilledVIIb Agricultural workers

people operating at higher levels. An occupation-based indica-tor of hierarchy might better capture that quality. Further still,while education is one measure of information, Bourdieu, in hisimmensely influential body of work addressed to the formationof social inequality, has identified a number of distinct types ofinformation that human agents employ in their struggles for sta-tus, and educational attainment is only one (Bourdieu, 1977, 1984).Social capital (who you know), and cultural capital (diffuse ‘cul-tural’ knowledge, much attained through family socialization) havea much broader impact, as he has demonstrated.

What expectations should we have, then, for a national or globalsocioeconomic hierarchy? Beginning with the top of the hierarchy,Odum is purposely vague about identifying persons leaving lega-cies, and does not further subdivide the one million into additionalscales. Other observers have been more willing. David Rothkopf(2008) has compellingly catalogued the super-elite of the capitalistworld-system, whom he labels the ‘superclass’. In so doing, he fol-lows in the tradition of C. Wright Mills’ The Power Elite, fifty yearsprior (Mills, 1956). The superclass are members not only of gov-ernment, but also of industry and media, persons whose fame and‘shared information’ exceeds most national politicians. Rothkopfattests that the superclass is a recognizable cadre of perhaps 5000persons, of which a top few are known to all. In between the poorand the superclass are the rest of us that input our labor to theeconomic hierarchy. The position of academic elites, whom Odumranks in the fourth scale, is open to empirical study. But it should begranted that they may not be found in top controlling positions (cf.Odum, 1983, p. 537). Instead, the information of enculturated prac-tical knowledge and experience (Bourdieu, 1977), which relatesespecially to the levers of power and wealth, may be the informa-tion that sets the superclass apart.

If ‘educational attainment’ were replaced by an occupation-based indicator of hierarchy, as proposed above, what would bean example, and what features would it possess, such as numberof hierarchical scales? It was said in the early Middle Ages that theworld was divided into ‘those who labor’, ‘those who fight’, and‘those who pray’. A better example of an ‘occupation-based indi-cator’ is the ‘Goldthorpe schema’ in Table 2 (Shaw et al., 2007, pp.78–79). Here seven scales are identified. Notice, furthermore, thatthe top scale must mask great variance of income and power, whichincludes the transnational superclass discussed above (Rothkopf,2008), and the ranking which even further divides it. Furthermore,intended for Western economies, this method underestimates thediversity at the bottom of the scale, especially among women-headed households in developing countries (Kabeer, 2003).

Finally, in Odum’s method, there is no theorized relationshipbetween total energy flows for each of his scales. Total energy out-put for each scale simply reflects the number of persons in eachcategory of ‘educational attainment’. Although not applied here,Odum elsewhere describes a simplifying assumption that may be

elling 221 (2010) 2112–2117 2115

uhppseiipflmt

3

FsgistFbfiltsb1sp

ttits

TGabcnttafiwttaiepo

Fig. 5. People transformities compared. This graph compares Odum’s human trans-formity values with the values obtained in Table 3. Units are Sej/J. Note that in thesecond group, the lowest transformities are lower, while the highest are signifi-cantly higher. The low group would perhaps indicate the world poor or underclass,while those on the right are the superclass (Rothkopf, 2008). The unlabeled points

T. Abel / Ecological Mod

tilized to estimate transformities in an energy transformationierarchy (Odum, 1996, pp. 30–31). From the evidence of manyublished graphs of energy flows for series of transformations, theercent use of energy at each step in an energy chain is often con-tant. The observed relation is logarithmic, where one step in annergy transformation hierarchy is an order of magnitude changen energy flow. This simple mathematical technique will be utilizedn this paper to divide the world population into scales. For the pur-ose of demonstration, an order of magnitude difference in energyow will distinguish each scale. With human hierarchy, order ofagnitude differences are simply attained by dividing the popula-

ion into groups whose counts are apart by orders of magnitude.

. New estimations

If indeed we inhabit a globalized biosphere (Fotopoulos, 2001;rank, 1998), in which a superclass and transnational corporationstand astride nations, and populations, money, images, waste, andoods are flows that individual societies are often unable or unwill-ng to control directly (Urry, 1998), then perhaps a national analysishould be superseded by a global analysis. That will be the posi-ion taken here, and a global human hierarchy will be estimated.or the simplicity of this demonstration a total population of 6.11illion is adopted, the global population at some point in 2001. Arst scale of 550 million is created, followed by a scale of 55 mil-

ion, 5.5 million, etc., down to a final scale of 55. The last 5500 ishe superclass described by (Rothkopf, 2008). The final 55 are theuper-elites of the superclass that Rothkopf attests to be recognizedy all in that privileged company. Using a global emergy budget of.58 E25 Sej/yr (Odum et al., 2000), and the same average mea-ure of metabolism of 3.82 E9 J/individual/yr for each person, it isossible to calculate transformities for each scale, shown in Table 3.

These transformities are graphed in Fig. 5, together with Odum’sransformities. It can be seen that the lower end (7.5E4) of human

ransformities is lower than Odum’s and the higher end (7.5E13)s significantly higher though still below most of the informationransformities in Fig. 1. Discussion of these differences will be pre-ented.

able 3lobal emergy and calculated transformities. These transformities are calculated inn identical manner to Table 1 transformities. Instead of US figures, a global emergyudget and global population are used. In this instance, however, the populationounts have no associated meaning. They were attained by calculating order of mag-itude differences, from 55 to 5.5 billion persons. The total count is thus 6.11 billion,he global population of a few years ago, chosen for its clarity of demonstration. Notehat the largest scale of 5.5 billion is then broken into two scales, one of 4.5 billionnd one of 1 billion (only 10% of an equivalent portion of emergy was assigned to therst scale). The purpose here was to create a more realistic population distribution,hich is suggestive of a typical income curve in which there is a brief run-up on

he left of a peak, which is equivalent to the most impoverished. The peak containshe majority of the population, and from that peak there is usually a steep declinend a long tail. As a fundamental principle of hierarchy (Odum, 1996, pp. 30–31),t is expected that order of magnitude differences in energy flow will distinguishach scale. With human hierarchy, order of magnitude energy differences are sim-ly attained by dividing the population into groups whose counts are apart by ordersf magnitude.

Global emergy budget People Transformity (Sej/J)

2.88E+23 1.00E+09 7.53E+041.58E+25 4.50E+09 9.04E+051.58E+25 5.50E+08 7.53E+061.58E+25 5.50E+07 7.53E+071.58E+25 5.50E+06 7.53E+081.58E+25 5.50E+05 7.53E+091.58E+25 5.50E+04 7.53E+101.58E+25 5.50E+03 7.53E+111.58E+25 5.50E+02 7.53E+121.58E+25 5.50E+01 7.53E+13

in between might be associated with a scheme such as that in Table 2, however thatissue requires further exploration, perhaps regarding the nature of global productionchains, discussed below.

4. Discussion

4.1. First approximations

Odum wishes us to be clear that his calculations of human ser-vice transformities were first approximations, and open to revision.He states, “the emergy accounting of human information is fairlynew, and few known transformities are available. . .In a rough waythe graph (Table 1) begins to evaluate what humans contribute(Odum, 1996, p. 231).”

Humans possess and perpetuate cultural information, and pos-session of differing information, for Odum, is what differentiatespeople within the human hierarchy described here. He providesthe simple formula, “human service is evaluated by multiplyingthe energy expended by a human being by the transformity of thatperson’s education and experience (Odum, 1996, p. 230).” Notethat he used the phrase “education and experience”. In his formu-lations, however, he only utilized data on educational levels. Thisis not surprising, since this data is readily available. However, assuggested above, other cultural information beyond formal edu-cation is essential to the construction of human hierarchy. Whilethat information is far more difficult to articulate, its existence andimportance gives us reason to accept the possibility that humanhierarchy is more complicated and perhaps more expansive thanOdum expected. That hierarchy may equate with the larger hierar-chy described in this paper.

4.2. Value in cultural information

Anthropologists and sociologists have critically studied thenature of human inequality. Bourdieu has demonstrated that theinformation of enculturation from parents and peers, not (only)

2 elling

fdbise(ps

4

itdatTsmbgdiafp

4

ihaogshued1soThst

gsociaisvnlochwb

116 T. Abel / Ecological Mod

ormal education, provides the distinction necessary for the repro-uction of social hierarchy (Bourdieu, 1984). Information aboutehaviors that are appropriate and defining of social status, or

nformation about the use of power, these are the practical rea-oning from which differentiation grows. As we know, many worldlites are children of past elites, forming dynasties of great powerDomhoff, 1998). The transmission of cultural information fromarents and role models has surely contributed to the fortunes ofuccessive generations.

.3. Back-calculating

How can the ideas presented in this paper contribute to advanc-ng emergy research? As emergy researchers endeavor to applyheir methods to challenging cultural processes, such as the pro-uction of media, of discourse, of ritual, or of education, which arell essential inputs to people and households, it will be valuableo know the expected range of person or household total emergies.hese can be back-calculated from transformities, setting some rea-onable limits or bounds to which the summing of input emergiesay not exceed, or must appear reasonable. This technique has

een applied in Abel (2010), in which a range of household emer-ies are calculated for a county in Taiwan. Using empirical surveyata and a number of innovative approaches to evaluating cultural

nformation (Abel, 2009), household emergy values are producednd compared with the expected scales. Preliminary results agreeavorably with the scales calculated with methods proposed in thisaper.

.4. Ten orders of magnitude?

Perhaps the most reasonable objection to the results presentedn this paper is the issue of the number of scales proposed for theuman hierarchy. Are there natural limits to the number of scales inhierarchy? Odum tells us that transformities have as many ordersf magnitude as there are energy levels in the universe. Within theeobiosphere, transformities range from 1 for sunlight to 1E32 forome categories of genetic information (Odum, 1996, p. 19). Per-aps objection can be made to such a large hierarchy composed ofnits of the same type. Many energy transformation series are “het-rogeneous”, where “each level in the hierarchy is occupied by aifferent kind of unit with recognizably different processes (Odum,996, p. 30).” An ecological food chain is an example. But still othereries are “homogeneous”, composed of the convergence of flowsf one type, as streams form into rivers (Odum, 1996, pp. 29–30).he series described here is something in between, composed ofumans within households, but humans who form a complex divi-ion of labor in a web of economic niches that is more analogous tohe diversity in the webs of ecological niches within ecosystems.

But if it is unobjectionable to construct hierarchy from a homo-eneous series of units, then the issue of number of scales musttill be addressed. What other evidence exists for so many stepsf convergence in human hierarchy. One piece comes from theontemporary global economy. Today many goods are producedn transnational production chains. Further, production chainsre themselves enmeshed in broader production networks ofnter-firm relationships. Such networks are extremely complextructures, “with intricate links – horizontal, diagonal, as well asertical – forming multi-dimensional, multi-layered lattices of eco-omic activity (Dicken, 2003, p. 16).” The global workforce is thus

inked by the production of products in vast networks that span

ceans, and converge goods and services from peripheries to mega-ities. Located with that network of production are people andouseholds. While the number of steps in global production net-orks will vary with products, clearly the number of linkages may

e great.

221 (2010) 2112–2117

Another piece of evidence comes from studies of social struc-ture and “socioeconomic position.” In recent times, a number ofmeasurement schemes have been proposed, such as the Cam-bridge Scale, with six levels arranged from most advantaged toleast (Shaw et al., 2007, p. 60). Other scales simply divide house-holds into ‘income’ scales. These invariably mask the varianceof income in the top scale, labeled as ‘greater than’ some quan-tity. As Nobel Prize economist Paul Samuelson famously wrote in1948:

If we made an income pyramid out of a child’s blocks, with eachlayer portraying $1,000 of income, the peak would be far higherthan the Eiffel Tower, but almost all of us would be within a yardof the ground. (1948, quoted in Shaw et al., 2007).

Thus, for example, the U.S. Census Bureau statistics for 2007 arepresented in income increments, which includes a final category of“$250,000 and above” (U.S. Census, 2007). Clearly this is inadequatefor capturing the breadth of social hierarchy in the U.S. A truly rep-resentative scale based on income should include more than thealready excessive 44 scales in the Census report.

Occupation-based scales offer perhaps a preferred model. Asdiscussed above, the ‘Goldthorpe schema’ has seven scales, includ-ing a top scale that should be further subdivided. With theseconsiderations, ten scales may not be unreasonable.

4.5. Global or national?

This paper adopts the goal of estimating a global human hier-archy. While a globalized world is a fashionable image, the realitymight be something else. Rather than a borderless world of cap-italist opportunity, Dicken (2003, p. 12) recognizes several setsof co-occurring economic processes “internationalizing, region-alizing, and globalizing.” Hirst and Thompson (1999), quoted inTonkiss (2006) argue that the great corporations of this new eraare not stateless, but rather based in a primary location, combinedwith strategic locations of branch assembly or distribution plantslocated elsewhere. These corporate players are better understoodas ‘national companies with an international scope of operations(Tonkiss, 2006, p. 32).’ If these opinions are better characteri-zations of the current world status, then it would perhaps bemore appropriate to calculate multiple regional human hierar-chies, based on regional emergy flows. A hierarchy for India orChina would still contain 9 scales, while hierarchies from smallerregions would have fewer. The physical locations of the elitesof transnational corporations, global media, etc., would need tobe agreed upon. But the benefit would be the production ofhuman hierarchies that more accurately reflect regional differ-ences.

4.6. Final comments

Odum’s emergy paradigm has arguably given the world aninvaluable tool for understanding nature, but also humans, oureconomy and culture, which are all parts within a natural whole.This paper endeavors to advance that research by offering some rea-soned modifications. Its value will be judged as the field continuesits inevitable self-organizing.

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge the two anonymous reviewers whosesuggestions resulted in several improvements to the paper. I wishto thank my research assistant, Wu Jian-Ching. This research wasconducted under Taiwan National Science Council NSC 97-2410-H-320-002. The council’s support is gratefully acknowledged.

elling

R

A

A

B

B

D

D

F

F

H

K

M

M

T. Abel / Ecological Mod

eferences

bel, T., 2009. Culture in information cycles: energy, information, and system self-organization of H.T. Odum Revisited. In: Paper Presented at the 53rd Meetingof The International Society for the Systems Sciences, July 12–17. University ofQueensland, Brisbane, Australia.

bel, T., 2010. The ‘locations’ of people and households within the culture-naturehierarchy of Hualien County, Taiwan. In: Paper Presented at the 6th BiennialEmergy Research Conference, January 14–17. Center for Environmental Policy,Gainesville, FL.

ourdieu, P., 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, MA.

ourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Rout-ledge, London.

icken, P., 2003. Global Shift: Reshaping the Global Economic Map in the 21st Cen-tury, 4 ed. The Guilford Press, New York.

omhoff, G.W., 1998. Who Rules America? Power and Politics in the Year 2000, 3edn. Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View, CA.

otopoulos, T., 2001. Globalisation, the reformist Left and the Anti-Globalisation‘Movement’. Democracy and Nature, 7.

rank, A., 1998. ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley, CA.

irst, P., Thompson, G., 1999. Globalization in Question: The International Economy

and the Possibilities of Governance. Polity Press, Cambridge.

abeer, N., 2003. Gender Mainstreaming in Poverty Eradication and the MillenniumDevelopment Goals. Commonwealth Secretariat, London.

eillaud, F., Gay, J.-B., Brown, M.T., 2005. Evaluation of a building using the emergymethod. Solar Energy 79, 204–212.

ills, C.W., 1956. The Power Elite. Oxford University Press, New York.

221 (2010) 2112–2117 2117

Odum, H.T., 1971. Environment, Power and Society. Wiley, New York.Odum, H.T., 1983. Systems Ecology. John Wiley, New York.Odum, H.T., 1986. Enmergy in ecosystems. In: Polunin, N. (Ed.), Ecosystem Theory

and Application. Wiley, New York, pp. 337–369.Odum, H.T., 1988. Self-organization, transformity, and information. Science 242,

1132–1139.Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Decision Making. John

Wiley, New York.Odum, H.T., 2007. Environment, Power, and Society for the Twenty-First Century:

The Hierarchy of Energy. Columbia University Press, New York.Odum, H.T., Brown, M.T., Brandt-Williams, S., 2000. Handbook of Emergy Evalua-

tion: Folio #1, Introduction and Global Budget. Center for Environmental Policy.University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Rothkopf, D., 2008. Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World they are Mak-ing. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Scienceman, D.M., 1987. Energy and Emergy. In: Pillet, G., Murota, T. (Eds.),Environmental Economics. Roland Leimgruber, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 257–276.

Shaw, M., Galobardes, B., Lawlor, D.A., Lynch, J., Wheeler, B., Smith, G.D., 2007. TheHandbook of Inequality and Socioeconomic Position: Concepts and Measures.The Policy Press, Bristol, UK.

Tonkiss, F., 2006. Contemporary Economic Sociology: Globalisation, Production,Inequality. Routledge, London.

Urry, J., 1998. The Concept of Society and the Future of Sociology. Dansksociologi.U.S. Census Bureau, 1987. Statistical Abstract of the United States. U.S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp. 120–138.U.S. Census Bureau, 2007. Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Eco-

nomic (ASEC) Supplement (accessed 05.20.2010). http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06 000.htm.