Futures 53 (2013) 63–73

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Futures

jou r nal h o mep ag e: w ww .e lsev ier . co m / loc ate / fu tu r es

Social capital, social capacity and social carrying capacity:

Perspectives for the social basics within environmentalsustainability

Volker Mauerhofer *

United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS), 6F International Organizations Center, Pacifico-Yokohama, 1-1-1

Minato Mirai, Nishi-ku, Yokohama 220 8502, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Available online 30 August 2013

Keywords:

Society

Capability

Asset

Human capital

ustainability

A B S T R A C T

This article aims to contribute to the continued development of a coherent theory and

practical implementation of sustainable development in the social context. It does so by

presenting a systematic discussion on ‘social capital’, ‘social capacity’ and ‘social carrying

capacity’ under the umbrella of environmental carrying capacity regarding environmental

sustainability. Based on an in-depth literature review, the relationship between social

capital and human capital is assessed in detail, the overlap between the social capacity

approach and different capability approaches closely discussed and the use as well as the

meaning of social carrying capacity in science and in practice for environmental

sustainability is more intensively explored. In summary, the results of the analysis provide

for all the three assessed terms an innovative variety of possible new contributions to

future policy proposals and research priorities for social sustainability regarding

population growth, social riots, overwork and technical overload obeying the environ-

mental limits.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

‘Sustainable development’ is a widely recognized and applied term ever since its definition1 was launched in 1987 withinthe ‘Brundtland Report’ called ‘Our Common Future’. Since then there has been a wide common sense in sciences and inpractice that the social aspect contributes a significant part (besides the environmental and economic aspects) to sustainabledevelopment (see e.g. [27,26,32,43,42,38,80]). This should not be a great surprise given the central role of human needs andwants within the definition cited above. However, the discussion on sustainability during the first decade after 1987appeared to mainly concentrate on environmental and economic issues while social topics played a rather minor part despitethe population aspects (e.g. [25,24]). During recent years there has been a substantial increase in research and literatureregarding the social aspect of sustainable development.2 Nevertheless, the social aspect of sustainability can be considered

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 45 221 2300; fax: +81 45 221 2302.

E-mail address: mauerhofer@unu.edu.

URL: http://www.ias.unu.edu1 ‘Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable—to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs.’ ([85], p. 8).2 A ‘title’-search at the ‘ISI Web of Knowledge’ for ‘‘‘Social Sustainab*’’’ resulted in 63 results for the period from 1999, but for the prior time only five

results starting with the first one in 1991 (implemented at 16th August 2010). Thirty-nine results dated after 2005. The same search implemented at 2nd

June 2013 resulted in a total of 127 whereas 104 results dated after 2005 which indicates that recently during less than three years the total number almost

doubled.

0016-3287/$ – see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.08.006

Fig. 1. a 3-D S(a) 3-D Sustainability (adapted from Figure 1 in [1, p. 498]) and (b) social capital, social capacity and social carrying capacity.

V. Mauerhofer / Futures 53 (2013) 63–7364

the one least explored while the environmental sustainability and economic sustainability are more thoroughly assessed[39]. The discussion increased recently also in the context of future perspectives [68] regarding a socially sustainabledegrowth of the human overuse of natural resources and natural sink capacities [2,19,31] in order to respect global limits togrowth including environmental planetary boundaries [62,67]. With regard to the research field of sustainable development,some basic issues of social sustainability seem to have not yet been conceptually analysed in depth.

This article aims to clarify some of the basic issues surrounding the further development of a coherent theory and thepractical implementation of social sustainability. It therefore seeks to provide a more systematic and consistent view on‘social capital’, ‘social capacity’ and ‘social carrying capacity’ in the sense of 3D Sustainability [1]. These three social elementsof 3D Sustainability are all situated under the overall umbrella of environmental carrying capacity (Fig. 1a and b).

Fig. 1a portrays the concept of 3-D Sustainability without pictorially including – due to reasons of figural simplicity – ‘socialcarrying capacity’ [1, pp. 499, 501 and 502]. From the figure, it can be seen that 3-D Sustainability integrates capital and capacityin environmental, social and economic terms, respectively under the common umbrella of the environmental carrying capacity.Furthermore, but less relevant for this article, 3-D Sustainability provides a decision support tool through a differentiatedanalysis of the criteria constituting its 3-D Sustainability triangle (see Fig. 1a, and further [1] and Figures 2–4 there).

Fig. 1b concentrates on the social aspect of 3-D Sustainability and also includes the social carrying capacity in thedepiction. The relationship of the social aspect with the other elements of 3-D Sustainability, such as environmentalsustainability and economic sustainability, is described in detail by [1] and therefore is not part of this article.

This article focuses on the three elements of social sustainability as indicated in Fig. 1b. Based on an in-depth literaturereview, the relationship between social capital and human capital in particular is assessed in more detail and the relationshipbetween social capital and social capacity is closely analysed. Similarly, the overlap between the social capacity approachand the capability approach [73,75] discussed in detail. Lastly, the meaning of the term ‘social carrying capacity’ in sciencesand in practice is intensively explored.

The results are presented and discussed in the following five main parts. The first part deals with the use of social capitaland human capital, particularly in social science. The second part offers a new proposal for the relationship between socialcapital and human capital. The third part discusses social capital (including human capital) and social capacity, especiallywith regard to their current and future positions in the discussion on sustainability. The fourth part refers to mainweaknesses of Sen’s capability approach [73,75] and the overlaps it has with the social capacity approach. The fifth part of theresults provides a definition of the term ‘social carrying capacity’ and perspectives for its future use.

2. Social aspects of sustainable development

Various social aspects of sustainable development have already been extensively discussed in earlier literature. The rangeof that discussion starts from criticising any attempt to extend the concept of sustainable development to areas not related to

V. Mauerhofer / Futures 53 (2013) 63–73 65

the environment and arguing that a distinct concept should be developed in order to take into account the ‘ethicosocial’limits to growth [17]. It reached toward proposing institutional aspects3 as a distinct, new and fourth dimension/pillar ofsustainability, in addition to the economic, social and environmental pillars (see e.g. [44, p. 9]). The former positionapparently relates more strongly to ethical aspects of social issues but has been criticized by Ref. [39] for leaving out socialconsiderations from sustainable development. The latter position – regarding an additional institutional dimension –overlooks the fact that institutions are constructed by societies. Furthermore, institutions and societies depend on theenvironmental (natural) capital and both cannot influence many naturally occurring influences such as natural ‘disasters’(e.g. volcano eruptions, earthquakes) or evolutionary biological changes (see also [1]). Nevertheless, cultural–aesthetic,religious–spiritual and political–institutional factors have to be considered an essential part of the sustainability discussion,and should be seen as a constituent of the social dimension of sustainability.

3. The use of social capital and human capital

In an interdisciplinary discussion such as the one about issues regarding social sustainability, the word ‘capital’ can beunderstood as ‘an asset capable of creating future benefit for at least one individual’. This definition even reduces Lachmann’sdefinition (1978, cited after [52]) in which capital – in its most basic sense – is understood as a set of assets capable ofgenerating future benefits for at least some individuals. The reduction concerns the question of plurality and reduces themeaning to a single unit regarding the number of assets, of individuals and of benefits. Thus, it includes even a single asset:

(1) i

3

n which only one individual is interested (e.g. the owner)

(2) w hich is capable of bringing only one benefit (e.g. an intrinsic one) (3) w hich is not commercially tradable or which is not commercially traded, but which nevertheless can be transferred with

or without losing the asset. Examples of this type of asset include a flower from one’s own garden or lending a helpinghand to a neighbour.

Other authors write about assets in terms of social and human capitals (see e.g. [8]). The terms ‘social capital’ and ‘humancapital’ have already fuelled a multitude of discussions which will be shown later. Certain authors even see ‘social capital’and ‘human capital’ (as well as physical capital) as types of human-made capital (e.g. [6]).

3.1. Social capital

During the last two decades, the term ‘social capital’ has gained considerable attention within social science in particularbut also within other fields, [52] has shown a more than 200 fold increase (from 2 to 443) of citations about social capital inthe Web of Science from 1991 to 2006. Current overviews of definitions of social capital can be found, for example, with[6,22]. More historical comprehensive overviews are provided by, for example, [61,82]. An overview of definitions used instudies related to environmental aspects is presented, for example, by Ref. [78]. The following table provides sampledefinitions of the term ‘social capital’ that are representative of its range of use and meaning (Table 1).

This limited selection of definitions provided in Table 1 shows the wide range of use of the term social capital in thescientific literature. The range spans from approaches that are mainly based on individual attributes (e.g. Bourdieu [11]quoted after Sobel [76, p. 139] see the first and the ninth definition in Table 1), to approaches that emphasize the collectiveones (e.g. [14], p. 100; Putnam [60] quoted after Sobel [76, p. 146]; [79, p. 106]), finally to approaches equating bothindividual and collective attributes (e.g. [46, p. 243]; [53, p. 20]).

In general, within social science the term ‘social capital’ is often related to multiple social factors such as wealth, power, orreputation embedded in social networks (for an overview see e.g. [41, p. 3]). Several studies show that increased social trusthas positive growth effects on, for example, education, investments and GDP (for a literature overview see e.g. [9, p. 344] aswell as [22]). A network-oriented approach has been adopted by many studies that are investigating, by means of variousdefinitions, if social capital affects the natural environment (see for an overview [78]).

Major criticism has been put forward regarding the physically, strong output-oriented use of the term ‘social capital’ (foran overview see e.g. [69,35,76,81,66,34,22,54,37,87]). Some of the main counterarguments with regard to the differencebetween social capital and physical capital are that:

� O

ne cannot transfer social capital from one to another [4]. Sobel [76, p. 144] adds that this also applies to human capital as‘(A)n individual need not to destroy his own human capital when he transfers it (through teaching) to someone else.’ � P hysical capital has a rate of return and can be readily measured by summing past investment net of depreciation [77]. � In contrast to physical capital, social capital appreciates with use [51]. � T he equation of the existence of social capital with outcomes obtained by using social capital leads to circular arguments

such as a successful group succeeding because it has social capital, but the evidence that the group has social capital is itssuccess ([56], echoed e.g. by Refs. [21,76]).

Or even cultural–aesthetic and religious–spiritual aspects.

Table 1

Overview of selected definitions of ‘‘social capital’’ in literature.

Author(s) Definition of ‘‘social capital’’

Bourdieu [11] quoted after Sobel [76, p. 139] ‘‘Social capital is an attribute of an individual in a social context. One can acquire social capital

through purposeful action and can transform social capital into conventional economic gains. The

ability to do so, however, depends on the nature of the social obligations, connections, and networks

available to you.’’

Coleman [14, p. 100] ‘‘Social capital, however, comes about through changes in the relations among persons that facilitate

action.’’ Forms of social capital are obligations, expectations, trustworthiness of structures,

information channels, norms and effective sanctions.

Bourdieu and

Wacquant [12, p. 119]

‘‘Social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of

a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and

recognition.’’

Grootaert [33, p. 78] ‘‘In the political science, sociological, and anthropological literature social capital generally refers to

the set of norms, networks, and organizations through which people gain access to power and

resources, and through which decisionmaking and policy formulation occur.’’

Putnam [60, p. 31] ‘‘Features of social life–networks, norms and trust—that facilitate cooperations and coordination for

mutual benefit.’’

Nahapiet and

Ghoshal [46, p. 243]

‘‘The sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived

from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit.’’

Fukuyama [30, p. 7] ‘‘Social capital is an instantiated informal norm that promotes co-operation between two or more

individuals’’

Dyllick and

Hockerts [23, p. 133f]

The authors define two types of social capital: human capital and societal capital where societal

capital includes ‘‘the quality of public services, such as a good educational system, infrastructure or a

culture supportive of entrepreneurship.’’

Sobel [76, p. 139] (following Bourdieu [11]) ‘‘Social capital describes circumstances in which individuals can use membership in groups and

networks to secure benefits.’’

Farley and Costanza [29, p. 252f]

(referring to Ref. [4])

‘‘Social capital refers to the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and

quantity of a society’s social interactions. Increasing evidence shows that social cohesion is critical

for societies to prosper economically and for development to be sustainable. Social capital is not just

the sum of the institutions which underpin a society—it is the glue that holds them together.’’

Strange and

Bayley [79, p. 106]

The authors define social capital as ‘‘social networks and institutions’’.

Ostrom and Ahn [53, p. 20] ‘‘. . . Multiple forms of social capital . . .. Three types are particularly important in the study of

collective action: (1) trustworthiness, (2) networks and (3) formal and informal rules or institutions.

. . . We view social capital as an attribute of individuals and of their relationships that enhance their

ability to solve collective-action problems.’’

World Bank [84] ‘‘Social capital refers to the norms and networks that enable collective action.’’

V. Mauerhofer / Futures 53 (2013) 63–7366

� T

he ability to use network relationships to obtain beneficial outcomes (in the sense of Refs. [14,61]) does not necessarilybring benefit to the whole society or even for the network; it might even harm people outside the network (e.g.[4,21,56,76]).

The problem surrounding the multi-faceted term of ‘social capital’ finds another origin in the fact that material features(such as a membership in a club) and immaterial features (such as ‘trust’) are mixed, although these two types are often, butnot always, positively or negatively correlated. Hence, it is not surprising that even in social science literature the call getslouder to more clearly distinguish the resource side and the flows therefrom. Criticism along the same line was previouslyraised by Woolcock [83, p. 70], according to whom definitions of social capital should focus on ‘sources rather thanconsequences’. Similarly, Prakash and Selle [57, p. 18] question ‘which is the stock and which is the flow here?’, with regardto the different elements in the definitions of social capital. Fukuyama [30, p. 7] criticizes the ‘number of different definitions,many of them referring to manifestations of social capital rather than to social capital itself’. In addition, Sønderskov [78, p.269] ends her overview on environmental literature related to social capital with a criticism of the vastly different conceptsof social capital and with a call for further research assessing ‘whether, why, how and when social capital helps solveenvironmental problems’.

3.2. Human capital

Ever since the term ‘human capital’ became popular within neoclassical economists during the 1960s [7,71] it hasgarnered similar attention in the literature of other scientific fields such as ecological economics and social sciences, as doesthe term ‘social capital’. The following table provides some basic definitions of ‘human capital’ (Table 2).

From Table 2 it can be seen that the definitions refer to similar features but also that the definitions vary regarding themanner these features are established. Some authorities do not distinguish at all between genetically predetermined and notgenetically predetermined features while others only include one of them. Nevertheless, it is the issue of geneticallypredetermined human capital that is often overlooked by authors who emphasize the possibility of the creation anddevelopment of human and social capital (see e.g. [14, p. 100]; [29, p. 252f]; [5, p. 251]). Several of the definitions in Table 2

Table 2

Examples of definitions of ‘‘human capital’’ in literature regarding sustainable development.

Author(s) Definitions of ‘human capital’

Schulz [71] ‘‘Human capital are useful skills and knowledge that people acquire’’

Coleman [10] ‘‘The worker attributes, which are valued by employers and which therefore constitute ‘‘human

capital,’’ are not limited to technical skills and abstract productive capacities but also to, in

particular, such ascriptive attributes as race, sex, age, ethnicity, and formal credentials.’’

Coleman [14, p. 100] ‘‘Human capital is created by changes in persons that bring about skills and capabilities that make

them able to act in new ways.’’

OECD (1998, p. 9) (cited after [70, p. 90]) ‘‘The knowledge, skills, competences and other attributes embodied in individuals that are relevant

to economic activity.’’

Dyllick and Hockerts [23, p. 133f] Human capital is one of two types of social capitals (the other one is societal capital) and ‘‘. . .

concerns primarily aspects such as skills, motivation and loyalty of employees and business

partners.’’

Farley and Costanza [29, p. 252f]

(referring to ‘Brainmarket (no date)’)

‘‘practical knowledge, acquired skills, and learned abilities of an individual that make him or her

potentially productive and thus equip him or her to earn income in exchange for labour.’’

Lengnick-Hall and

Lengnick-Hall [40], p. 45

‘‘the collective knowledge, skills, abilities and characteristics (that is, all of the capabilities

combined) of an organization’s employees and managers that create a capacity (potential that can

be realized) for competitive advantage.’’

Strange and Bayley [79, p. 106] ‘‘an educated and healthy workforce’’

Bhagavatula et al. [5, p. 251] ‘‘is an entrepreneur’s knowledge, which he could have acquired through education, experience or

both.’’

V. Mauerhofer / Futures 53 (2013) 63–73 67

contain an economic focus, some of them even focusing on workers (e.g. [10]) or entrepreneurs [5, p. 251]. Other definitionsare formulated quite openly such as Schultz’s [71], although expressed in a clear economic context, and Coleman’s definition[14, p. 100]. Ostrom [52, p. 20] gives a definition within a broader, non-economically oriented picture, too. She states,regarding human capital, that an individual defers current consumption and pleasurable activities to acquire better skills andknowledge that can potentially increase future benefits (e.g. young people going to college, acquiring knowledge; athletesbuild human capital by eating healthy food, building up muscular strength, good health and developing endurance;musicians spend time and effort practicing to enhance their skills on an instrument). However, as mentioned in the previoussegment, genetic predisposition also plays a crucial role in the question at hand, if an individual builds up body mass,knowledge, skills, interests and other characteristics.

3.3. Common aspects

A comparison of Tables 1 and 2 indicates that authors who commonly use definitions of social and human capital togethertry to distinguish them by a quantitative measurement (e.g. [29]) or tend to use the term ‘human capital’ to refer to thesource and ‘social capital’ as a sort of ‘follow up’ (e.g. [79]). Furthermore, as shown above in the literature on sustainability,the term ‘human capital’ is integrated into the definition of social capital (see e.g. above [23]). In a similar way, social capitalis often divided into two aspects which are the more individual and the more collective forms of social capital (see e.g.recently [28]). The usage of ‘more’ emphasizes that already the distinction is difficult to make as more than one personclearly constitutes a ‘collective’. Furthermore, the whole social network worldwide consists of countless sub-networks thatare built by and on behalf of individual persons.

Thus, there exists a strong and often reflexive relationship between social capital and human capital. For example,Coleman [14, p. 109] highlights one direction of this relationship when he emphasizes that ‘(b)oth social capital in the familyand social capital in the community play roles in the creation of human capital in the rising generation’. The other directionis, for instance, pointed out by Dinda [20, p. 2020] when stating that ‘(h)uman capital accumulation results from productiveconsumption and an increase in social capital is driven by the existence of human capital.’

In summary, with regard to social science, the analysis shows that clear quantitative and qualitative overlaps existbetween social capital and human capital (Table 3).

4. Perspectives on social and human capital with regard to sustainability

The analysis up until now shows the close relationship and wide overlap between the two terms social capital and humancapital.

able 3

omparison of aspects of definitions social and human capital in social science.

Scope Social capital Human capital

Quantitative scope Mainly addresses more than one individual Mainly addresses one individual

Qualitative scope Mainly addresses stocks of and flows between

individuals/groups

Mainly addresses stocks of and flows within a

single individual

T

C

Social Capi tal

Human Capital

Fig. 2. Relationship between social capital and human capital.

V. Mauerhofer / Futures 53 (2013) 63–7368

Thus, in the discussion on sustainability, and for a more integrated approach [55], human capital should be identified as amulti-sub-section of social capital (Fig. 2).

3D Sustainability does interpret the relationship between social capital and human capital in the sense of Fig. 2, but doesnot visually distinguish them due to its higher level of abstraction (see above Fig. 1a and [1], similar [59]). Other authorseither only use the term ‘human capital’ [16], or they do not distinguish between the two but instead use a new term such as‘cultural capital’ (see e.g. [13]) or ‘societal capital’ (see [23] above).

‘Human capital’ and ‘social capital’ are terms that originated within the fields of economics and other social sciences,respectively. Social capital and human capital were terminologically introduced by economists and other social scientists,partly to parallel their own field of sciences with other disciplines. As shown above, even within the fields of natural science,economics and other social sciences, these two terms are by far not consistently interpreted, but are widely applied. Strongdoubts about the suitability of the current interpretation and application of the term ‘social capital’ have becomeincreasingly obvious.

A more focused definition of social capital – based on the idea of capital as a broader asset – would support the inclusion ofother disciplines into an interdisciplinary research field such as that of social sustainability. Current definitions of socialcapital therefore do not become useless as they can be transferred in part toward the term ‘social capacity’ and thereforecontribute to the definition of that term (see next section).

Thus, based on the analysis up until now, social capital (including human capital) should be defined:

(a) a

s a social asset with the character of either stock/source or sink at a certain time and (b) q uantitatively and qualitatively characterized through an adequate number of humans or a human being alone and

through already genetically predetermined and/or in another way capacitated characteristics (such as measurements,skills, interests).

This social capital can then – if at all – be further (again) supplemented through education, training, trusting relations,networks, organizations etc. in an enabling (such as a stock/source of joy) or in an absorptive way (such as a sink of

frustration).

Here, capacity and capital are clearly distinguished, although they can but do not necessarily have to influence each other.In comparison, as noted above in Table 2, at times the term ‘capacity’ (and even ‘capability’) gets included in a definition ofcapital in a solely uni-directional sense that every capital creates a capacity (see e.g. [40, p. 45], Table 2).

With regard to the quantitative element, depending on the task to be executed, an individual or a certain number ofindividuals might or might not be able to succeed, purely for quantitative reasons. Their social capital in numbers is eithersufficient or insufficient. Examples of this are the construction of huge buildings, a task which is impossible for groups with asmall number of individuals (except if they had the capacity to attract or force help from outsiders). Many tasks areimpossible to achieve by a single individual.

With regard to the qualitative element, measures, skills and interests might be genetically predetermined. Hence, a personmight make as much effort as possible in a certain discipline but never succeed. Given, for example, two athletes of the sameweight, the one who is taller by 50 cm, is almost inevitably going to be better at the high jump than the shorter one.Something such as musical ability can be developed through training up to a certain extent. The person, however, with thegenetically predetermined talent has an advantage over the individual, who does not, regardless of the extent of training.Interest in a certain subject (motorcycles, computers, nature. . .) also expresses a type of social capital that can be geneticallypredetermined. Thus, a person may not develop an interest for a specific issue, despite efforts another person may make toraise such an interest. The social capital (in the sense of accumulated human capital) of people therefore also includes strongelements of socially genetically predetermined – through heritage – characteristics such as sex, intelligence, interests,abilities or health.

Thus, in the following only the term social capital will be used. It consists of multiple, namely two or more units of humancapital.

V. Mauerhofer / Futures 53 (2013) 63–73 69

5. Social capital (including human capital) and social capacity

Social capital has been defined in social science, in particular, in a very broad manner. A variety of definitions for socialcapital has been found in discussions about growth and sustainable development. Social capital in terms of measures, skillsand interests such as described above might be only expressed in a certain environmental, social and/or economic contextand has to be ‘capacitated’ in the sense of unleashed, by oneself or from outside. This leads to the term ‘social capacity’ (seealso [54, p. 222]) in the context of 3D Sustainability (see for more details [1, p. 500f]). For instance, a poet’s best poem cannotbe broadly distributed without a given medium (e.g., paper, radio, TV, internet); an artist receives special support fromanother person and/or from a grant. Skills and interests of pupils/students might be acknowledged for the first time atschool/university by a professor and only thereafter adequately fostered. Certain pupils might learn better one-on-one ratherthan in a group context. Students are often only able to attend a college by means of financial support from an outside source.This means in general that often, capital’s capacity could be built up (see also e.g. [3]).

This capacity building of social capital can

� b

e self motivated or motivated from outside � b e materially or immaterially motivated � o ccur individually or in a larger context (two persons, a group, a network) � h appen without external resources (e.g. whistling, dancing) or with external resources in the sense of means of capacity

building of social capital.

The external resources can include other social capital (e.g. a trainer) and/or natural capital in the sense of environmental

sinks and sources (e.g. a wooden whistle instead of solely whistling with the mouth). The limitations on the growth of thesocial capital are expressed – apart of the limitations of the natural capacity and the natural carrying capacity – through thelimitations on social capacity and the social carrying capacity. The latter is discussed in section seven.

Social capacity is a consequence of the social capital (see also e.g. [66,83]). Social capacity describes flows/consequencesfrom social capital during a certain period and stays within the social and environmental carrying capacity [1].

The word ‘capacity’ is widely used within environmental science. Within this context, it refers in particular to theflow and consequences from the stock/source function as well as the sink function of nature. In a similar way, ‘socialcapacity’ can be divided into the flow and consequences from the stock/source function as well as the sink function ofsocial capital.

Social capacity can therefore be defined as growth or development of each hierarchical level of human or socialintegration within a certain spatial range, shaped by unilateral, multilateral, reflexive and/or interdependent processeswithin an individual and between individuals or groups of individuals within a certain period (derived from Ref. [18], seebelow).

Hence, social capacity consists of the sum of human capacity and the additional (positive or negative) aspects to beachieved solely through cooperation. Integration is used as the broader term in comparison, for example, with ‘interaction’. Itcould even occur within one individual without interaction with others. Processes have their basis in learning or geneticalpredetermination.

In earlier literature, Coleman [14, p. S105] clearly distinguishes between the forms of social capital (see his definition inTable 1) and the ‘social structure that facilitates social capital’ where he elevates the difference of social networks andappropriate social organizations. Based on the analysis up until now, the following results can be described visually (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 advocates for the future work on sustainability to replace the multifaceted terminological labyrinth of social capitalwith a clearer binominal distinction between social capital and social capacity.

Less differentiated than in the suggested interpretation within Fig. 3, Ref. [56] defines social capital as the capacity ofindividuals to command scarce resources by virtue of their membership in networks or broader social structures. Similarly,Olate [50, p. 13] names some of his outcomes of social capital as ‘capacities’ (the capacity to ‘get by’, e.g. meet child care needsand the capacity to ‘get ahead’, e.g. gain opportunities for change).

In comparison, the suggested interpretation allows us to overcome the well-founded criticism cited above on the currentinterpretation of social capital by Ref. [4], according to whom one cannot transfer social capital from one to another. Thesuggested interpretation allows for a transfer of both the capital and the capacity.

6. Social capacity and capability

This section deals with the distinction between, and the overlap of the terms capacity and capability in the social sense.While the relationship between the social capital approach and the capability approach [73,75] was more closely

examined by Comin [15] recently, the social capacity approach and the capability approach had not been given the same kindof attention until then. With his capabilities approach, Ref. [73] supported the idea of development as economic growth anddefined human development as the process of enlarging a person’s capabilities to function, the range of things that a personcould do and be in life, and its functionings, in the sense of functions already achieved.

Ref. [75] then formulated a framework that places freedom as the central feature of development. He advocates that bybeing provided freedom, the poor are given the means to become agents of change and are granted the autonomy to try to

‘Social capital’ as:

• Stock/source and sink at

given ti me

• Flow/consequence within

certain period

Current interpretatio n Suggested interpret ation

‘Social capital’ as :

• Stock/source and

sink at given time

‘Soci al capacity’ as:

• Flow/consequence

within certain period

Social aspects of su stainabilit y

Fig. 3. Current and suggested interpretations of social capital and social capacity.

V. Mauerhofer / Futures 53 (2013) 63–7370

achieve the life they would like to lead. Ref. [15] assessed the relationship between the capability approach of Sen and thesocial capital approach, whereas the latter (in the sense of Putnam’s concept of social capital) may better refer to ‘capability’than to ‘capital’ (p. 644). Similarly, Fig. 3 indicates that social capital should be seen as social capacity as far as it concerns theflows and consequences. Furthermore, Ref. [15] divides capabilities into individual capabilities and social capabilities wherethe latter ‘are those capabilities that can only be achieved socially, and that represent those sets of beings and doings that canonly be achieved as a result of social interaction’(p. 644). Despite this diversified use of the capability approach hesimultaneously strongly criticizes the (too) individualistic direction of the capability approach, suggesting the ‘de-individualization of the capability perspective’ (p. 644) and further proposing ‘to include value assessments of socialstructures’ (p. 642). In comparison, Refs. [64,65] argue regarding Sen’s capability approach in defence of ethicalindividualism which she distinguishes from methodological individualism and ontological individualism. Along the samelines, the second main capability approach, that of Ref. [48], takes a more ethical direction which affects social andenvironmental limits of sustainable development and additionally provides an explicit list of capabilities. Nussbaum strivesto explain how capabilities, together with the idea of a threshold level of capabilities, can provide a basis for centralconstitutional principles, in which citizens have a right to demand from their governments [50]. Sen’s [74] proposal arguesthat human capital is typically defined in terms of capital in production and therefore advocates the sole use of the moreinclusive concept of human capability. But not all authors agree with Sen’s argument that human capital is always defined asa mere resource for economic production (e.g. [52]). With this proposal, Sen furthermore unnecessarily combines stock andflow functions when he argues to supplement the concept of human capital with human capability because ‘human beingsare not merely means of production (even though they excel in that capacity), but also the end of the exercise.’ [74, p. 1960;italics not in original].

It should be further pointed out that the meanings of ‘capacity’ and ‘capability’ are closely connected in various languagesas both terms include a sense of potential, ability and/or performance. This connection also applies to the expression and useof these terms in the German language. Furthermore, the capacity and capability approaches both deal with the sustainabledevelopment of the source ‘social capital’ (in the sense of a consequence there from). In summary, the dichotomy betweencapital and capacity as applied within 3-D Sustainability (Fig. 1a and b) appears to be widely congruent with Sen’s capabilityapproach. However, the social capacity approach appears to provide the advantage that it is less individualistic incomparison with the capability approach of Sen. In addition, from the viewpoint of 3-D Sustainability it providesimprovements on Sen’s approach by more clearly distinguishing between stocks (capitals) and flows (capacities) as well asby including environmental and social thresholds via carrying capacities. Moreover, similarly, sustainable ecologicalcapacity is also understood as a meta-capability in the sense of the imminent precondition of human life [36,45].

7. Social carrying capacity

The term ‘social carrying capacity’ is not clearly defined in any field of science. In general, this term is always analysedwith regard to a certain spatial range. This range can vary widely, from, for example, the one extreme of ‘global’ to that of asingle small spatial unit (such as one human when it comes to the individual’s carrying capacity). Depending on the spatial

Table 4

Status quo and perspectives of ‘‘social carrying capacity’’ within social sustainability.

Social carrying capacity

Status quo Future potential research relevance e.g.

Hardly defined anywhere Future limits to population growth

Hardly used in sustainability science, except in e.g.: Trade offs between population growth and per capita consumption

protected area visitor management

(the relationship between visitors)

Social riots with regard to equality issues (income and resource distribution etc.)

traffic and water planning with regard to ‘‘urban

or human carrying capacity’’

Technical overload (and related resource questions) e.g. individual answer capacity

to daily electronic correspondence and overwork in general (leading to e.g.

burnouts and connected economic costs)

V. Mauerhofer / Futures 53 (2013) 63–73 71

range selected, the interdisciplinary research question in the context of sustainable development can be chosen. The correctidentification of this spatial level is a precondition for the identification of the correct measures applied in order not toexceed the carrying capacity. This applies to the social as well as to the ecological (environmental) carrying capacity.

del Monte-Luna et al. [18, p. 485] defined ecological carrying capacity as ‘the limit of growth or development of each andall hierarchical levels of biological integration, beginning with the population, and shaped by processes and interdependentrelationships between finite resources and the consumers of those resources’. With regard to the spatial range of anindividual protected area, the concept of carrying capacity is often discussed concerning environmental issues, such as theeffects on biodiversity, and/or with regard to social issues such as tourist satisfaction. (see e.g. [47,58,72]). Other studies onthe social carrying capacity of water related issues start from a spatial level often defined by human-made borders. These aredefined as a sort of urban or human carrying capacity with regard to certain water related types of human use [49,86]. Apartfrom this example related to the social and environmental carrying capacity of water and biodiversity related issues, thesocial carrying capacity is also beginning to be assessed regarding issues such as roads and subways [49]. Read and LeBlanc[63, p. 60] use the term ‘carrying-capacity stress’ in the particular context of how humans relate to the availability ofenvironmental resources.

Hence, similar to the above-cited definition of ecological carrying capacity brought forward by Ref. [18], social carryingcapacity can be defined as

The limit of growth or development of each hierarchical level of human or social integration within a certain spatial range,

shaped by unilateral, multilateral, reflexive and/or interdependent processes within an individual and between individuals

or groups of individuals within a certain time frame.

The definition of social capacity noted in the former section is incorporated in italics above and only the beginning wordreading ‘the limit of’ is new. The close relationship between social carrying capacity and environmental carrying capacity hasalready been discussed by Mauerhofer [1, p. 499]. In addition, in the example of a protected area it can be seen that the socialcarrying capacity on the individual or collective levels may be surpassed even if the environmental carrying capacity is not yetreached. Thus, visitors might feel disturbed and leave the area (and perhaps not return again) due to the number and/or behaviorof other visitors even if this situation does not affect the environmental carrying capacity there. Table 4 summarizes the currentand future research relevance of ‘social carrying capacity’ within social sustainability in the sense of 3-D Sustainability.

It is quite clear that it is much more difficult to measure and define social carrying capacities than environmental onesgiven that different cultures, opinions and attitudes appear in various societies of the human species. This makes it moredifficult to specify or even estimate when a certain social limit – in the sense of a social carrying capacity – will be reached.The future potential research relevance of social carrying capacity in terms of capacitating social capital exemplified inTable 4 correlates well with future issues such as population questions, degrowth, social conflicts and equality, as well asresource distribution [62,31,45,2]. Furthermore in particular the social issues discussed relate to all four laws of futurestudies such as defined by Ref. [68]: firstly, the problems are widely complex and interrelated such as shown already in Fig. 1;secondly, Mutually Assured Diversity (MAD) occurs within the social dimensions as well as regarding its connections to theenvironmental and economic dimensions of sustainability. Thirdly, the research presented is sceptical by questioningdominant axioms and assumptions such as social capital and Sen’s capability approach, and finally, it is (hopefully nottotally) futureless although it would be convenient if this research would bear its fruits largely in the present.

8. Conclusions

3-D Sustainability, as introduced by Ref. [1], appears to be a helpful approach to defining the social dimensions of thediscussion on sustainable development. The terms ‘social capital’, ‘social capacity’ and ‘social carrying capacity’ used in 3-DSustainability are not new, having already been discussed in several fields of science.

This article provides clarifications of the specific meanings of these three terms in connection with sustainabledevelopment. The results indicate that, with regard to social capital, human capital is only a multi-subsection of socialcapital. Furthermore, this article advocates that the broad application of social capital within social science be reduced to itsstock/source and sink function in the more interdisciplinary discussion on sustainability. Furthermore, the flows andconsequences derived from social capital should be covered by the term social capacity. This constitutes – in comparison to

V. Mauerhofer / Futures 53 (2013) 63–7372

the more individualistic capability approach of Refs. [73,75] – more coherence with the third term, ‘social carrying capacity’.The latter covers the limits of the social system relevant to the sustainability discussion. This article provides for all threeterms (social capital, social capacity and social carrying capacity), definitions, examples as well as perspectives for theirfurther application. Thus it contributes to a more conceptually sound and coherent theory of social sustainability in thedebate surrounding sustainable development.

Acknowledgment

The author is grateful to Klaus Hubacek, Stefan Schindler and two anonymous reviewers of this journal for their helpfulcomments on a former version of the paper as well as to participants of the 2nd Degrowth Conference held in Barcelona from26–29th March, 2010, the 17th Annual International Sustainable Development Research Conference, Earth InstituteColumbia University, New York/USA 8–10th May 2011 and the 9th International Conference of the European Society forEcological Economics, Bogazici University, Istanbul/Turkey 14–17th June 2011, for the useful discussion of a similar paperpresented there. The paper was included in the conference proceedings, respectively. The attendance of the author at the 2ndand 3rd mentioned conferences was financially supported by the programme ‘International Communication’ of thepublically established Austrian Research Association (Grant project no. 06/12135). The author also thanks Lisa A. Gautschiand Nicolas Ouellette for a detailed review of the English. Of course, the usual disclaimer applies.

References

[1] V. Mauerhofer, 3-D Sustainability: an approach for priority setting in situation of conflicting interests towards a Sustainable Development, EcologicalEconomics 63 (3) (2008) 496–506.

[2] V. Mauerhofer, Lose less instead of win more: the failure of decoupling and perspectives for competition in a degrowth economy, Environmental Values 22(2013) 43–57.

[3] M.S. Adam, C. Urquhart, No man is an island: social and human capital in IT capacity building in the Maldives, Information and Organization 19 (1) (2009) 1–21.[4] K.J. Arrow, Observations on social capital, in: P. Dasgupta, I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, World Bank, Washington, DC, 1999,

pp. 3–5.[5] S. Bhagavatula, T. Elfring, A. van Tilburg, G.G. van de Bunt, How social and human capital influence opportunity recognition and resource mobilization in

India’s handloom industry, Journal of Business Venturing 25 (3) (2010) 245–260.[6] V.O. Bartkus, J.H. Davis, Introduction: the yet undiscovered value of social capital, in: V.O. Bartkus, J.H. Davis (Eds.), Social Capital, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,

2009, pp. 1–14.[7] G. Becker, Investments in human capital: a theoretical analysis, Journal of Political Economy 70 (5) (1962) 9–49.[8] A. Bebbington, Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty, World Development 27 (12) (1999)

2021–2044.[9] C. Bjørnskov, Economic growth, in: G.T. Svendsen, G.L.H. Svendsen (Eds.), Handbook of Social Capital, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2009, pp. 337–353.

[10] S. Bowles, H. Gintis, The problem with human capital theory—a Marxian critique, American Economic Review 65 (2) (1975) 74–82.[11] P. Bourdieu, Forms of capital, in: J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT,

1986 , pp. 241–260.[12] P. Bourdieu, L.J.D. Wacquant, An invitation to reflexive sociology, Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, 1992.[13] P. Cochrane, Exploring cultural capital and its importance in sustainable development, Ecological Economics 57 (2) (2006) 318–330.[14] J. Coleman, Social capital in the creation of human capital, American Journal of Sociology 94 (Supplement) (1988) 95–120.[15] F. Comin, Social capital and the capability approach, in: D. Castiglione, J.W. Van Deht, G. Wolleb (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Capital, Oxford University

Press, New York, NY, 2008, pp. 624–651.[16] R. Costanza, H.E. Daly, Natural capital and sustainable development, Conservation Biology 6 (1) (1992) 37–46.[17] H.E. Daly, Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development, Beacon Press, Boston, MA, 1996.[18] P. del Monte-Luna, B.W. Brook, M.J. Zetina-Rejon, V.H. Cruz-Escalona, The carrying capacity of ecosystems, Global Ecology and Biogeography 13 (6) (2004)

485–495.[19] M. Deriu, Democracies with a future: degrowth and the democratic tradition, Futures 44 (2012) 553–561.[20] S. Dinda, Social capital in the creation of human capital and economic growth: a productive consumption approach, Journal of Socio-Economics 37 (5) (2008)

2020–2033.[21] S.N. Durlauf, The case ‘against’ social capital, Focus 20 (3) (1999) 1–5.[22] S.N. Durlauf, M. Fafchamps, Social Capital, Working Paper no. 10485, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, 2004.[23] T. Dyllick, K. Hockerts, Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability, Business Strategy and Environment 11 (2) (2002) 130–141.[24] P.R. Ehrlich, A.H. Ehrlich, The Population Explosion, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1990.[25] P.R. Ehrlich, G.C. Daily, A.H. Ehrlich, P. Matson, P. Vitousek, Global Change and Carrying Capacity: Implications for Life on Earth, Stanford Institute for

Population and Resource Studies, Stanford, 1989.[26] EEA, Environment in the European Union at the turn of the century: European Environmental Agency, Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities, Luxembourg, 1999.[27] J. Elkington, Cannibals with Forks, Capstone, Oxford, UK, 1999.[28] H. Esser, The two meanings of social capital, in: D. Castiglione, J.W. Van Deht, G. Wolleb (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Capital, Oxford University Press, New

York, NY, 2008, pp. 22–49.[29] J. Farley, R. Costanza, Envisioning shared goals for humanity: a detailed, shared vision of a sustainable and desirable USA in 2100, Ecological Economics 43 (2)

(2002) 245–259.[30] F. Fukuyama, Social capital, civil society and development, Third World Quarterly 22 (1) (2001) 7–20.[31] E. Garcia, Degrowth, the past, the future, and the human nature, Futures 44 (2012) 546–552.[32] B. Giddings, B. Hopwood, G. O’Brien, Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development, Sustainable Development 10

(4) (2002) 187–196.[33] C. Grootaert, Social Capital: the missing link, in: Social Capital Initiative, Working Paper no. 3, The World Bank, Washington, DC, 1998, pp. 77–93.[34] A.K. Gupta, R. Sinha, D. Koradia, R. Patel, M. Parmar, P. Rohit, H. Patel, K. Patel, V.S. Chand, T.J. James, A. Chandan, M. Patel, T.N. Prakash, P. Vivekanandan,

Mobilizing grassroots’ technological innovations and traditional knowledge, values and institutions: articulating social and ethical capital, Futures 35 (2003)975–987.

[35] J. Harriss, Social capital construction and the consolidation of civil society in rural areas, in: Working Paper Series no. 00-16, Development Studies Institute/London School of Economics and Political Science,, London, UK, 2001,[Online], URL: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/DESTIN/workingPapers.htm (AccessedMarch 21, 2010).

V. Mauerhofer / Futures 53 (2013) 63–73 73

[36] B. Holland, Justice and the environment in Nussbaum’s capabilities approach: why sustainable ecological capacity is a meta-capability, Political ResearchQuarterly 61 (2) (2008) 319–332.

[37] N. Jones, C.P. Halvadakis, C. Sophoulis, Social capital and household solid waste management policies: a case study in Mytilene, Greece, EnvironmentalPolitics 20 (2) (2011) 264–283.

[38] P. Lawn, Sustainable development: concept and indicators, in: P. Lawn (Ed.), Sustainable Development Indicators in Ecological Economics, Edward Elgar,Cheltenham, 2006, , 13 ff.

[39] M. Lehtonen, The environmental–social interface of sustainable development: capabilities, social capital, institutions, Ecological Economics 49 (2) (2004)199–214.

[40] M.L. Lengnick-Hall, C.A. Lengnick-Hall, Human Resource Management in the Knowledge Economy: New Challenges, New Roles, New Capabilities, Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 2003.

[41] N. Lin, B.H. Erickson, Theory, measurement, and the research enterprise on social capital, in: N. Lin, B.H. Erickson (Eds.), Social Capital, Oxford UniversityPress, New York, NY, 2008, pp. 1–24.

[42] S. Mainka, J. McNeely, B. Jackson, Depend on Nature—Ecosystem Services supporting Human Livelihoods, IUCN—The World Conservation Union, Gland,Geneva, 2005.

[43] J. Martinez-Alier, The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflict and Valuation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2002.[44] J. Meadowcroft, N.K. Farrell, J. Spangenberg, Developing a framework for sustainability governance in the European Union, International Journal for

Sustainable Development 9 (1/2) (2005) 3–11.[45] B. Muraca, Towards a fair degrowth-society: justice and the right to a ‘good life’ beyond growth, Futures 44 (2012) 535–545.[46] J. Nahapiet, S. Ghoshal, Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage, Academy of Management Review 23 (2) (1998) 242–267.[47] J. Navarrete, A. Lora, J. Gonzalez-Arenas, Sustainable tourism and visitor satisfaction: social carrying capacity in ‘sierra De Grazalema’ Natural Park (Spain),

in: F.D. Pineda, C.A. Brebbia (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism, WIT Press, Southampton, UK, 2004, pp. 261–271.[48] M.C. Nussbaum, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000.[49] K. Oh, Y. Jeong, D. Lee, W. Lee, H. Choi, Determining development density using the urban carrying capacity assessment system, Landscape and Urban

Planning 73 (1) (2005) 1–15.[50] R. Olate, Local Institutions, Social Capital and Capabilities: Challenges for Development and Social Intervention in Latin America, in: Draft Paper Presented at

the Professor Douglass North PhD Seminar, 29 October., Center for New Institutional Social Sciences/Washington University,, St. Louis, MO, 2003,[Online],URL: http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/olatepaper.pdf (Accessed March 21, 2010).

[51] E. Ostrom, Social capital: a fad or a fundamental concept, in: P. Dasgupta, I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, World Bank,Washington, DC, 1999, pp. 172–214.

[52] E. Ostrom, What is social capital, in: V.O. Bartkus, J.H. Davis (Eds.), Social Capital, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2009, pp. 17–38.[53] E. Ostrom, T.K. Ahn, The meaning of social capital and its link to collective action, in: G.T Svendsen, G.L.H. Svendsen (Eds.), Handbook of Social Capital, Edward

Elgar, Cheltenham, 2009, pp. 17–35.[54] M. Pawar, Social capital, Social Science Journal 43 (2) (2006) 211–226.[55] B. Piazza-Georgi, The role of human and social capital in growth: extending our understanding, Cambridge Journal of Economics 26 (4) (2002) 461–479.[56] A. Portes, Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology, Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998) 1–14.[57] S. Prakash, P. Selle, Introduction: why investing social capital, in: S. Prakash, P. Selle (Eds.), Investigating Social Capital: Comparative Perspectives on Civil

Society, Sage, New Delhi, India, 2004, pp. 17–46.[58] T. Prato, Modelling carrying capacity for national parks, Ecological Economics 39 (3) (2001) 321–331.[59] J. Pretty, H. Ward, Social capital and the environment, World Development 29 (2) (2001) 209–227.[60] R. Putnam, Democracy in America at century’s end, in: A. Hadenius (Ed.), Democracy’s Victory and Crisis, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1997,

pp. 27–70.[61] R. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 2000.[62] J. Randers, The real message of the limits to growth, GAIA 21 (2) (2012) 102–105.[63] D.W. Read, S.A. LeBlanc, Population growth, carrying capacity, and conflict, Current Anthropology 44 (1) (2003) 59–85.[64] I. Robeyns, An Unworkable Idea or a Promising Alternative? Sen’s Capability Approach Re-examined, Discussion paper 00. 30, University of Leuven, Center

for Economic Studies, Leuven, Belgium, 2000.[65] I. Robeyns, The capability approach: a theoretical survey, Journal of Human Development 6 (1) (2004) 93–114.[66] L.J. Robinson, A.A. Schmid, M.E. Siles, Is social capital really capital? Review of Social Economy 60 (1) (2002) 1–21.[67] J. Rockstrom, W. Steffen, K. Noone, A. Persson, F.S. Chapin, E.F. Lambin, T.M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H.J. Schellnhuber, B. Nykvist, C.A. de Wit, T. Hughes,

S. van der Leeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sorlin, P.K. Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin, M. Falkenmark, L. Karlberg, R.W. Corell, V.J. Fabry, J. Hansen, B. Walker, D. Liverman,K. Richardson, P. Crutzen, J.A. Foley, A safe operating space for humanity, Nature 461 (2009) 472–475.

[68] Z. Sardar, The namesake: futures, futures studies, futurology, futuristic, foresight—what’s in a name, Futures 42 (2010) 177–184.[69] T. Schuller, S. Baron, J. Field, Social capital: a review and critique, in: S. Baron, J. Field, T. Schuller (Eds.), Social Capital: Critical Perspectives, Oxford University

Press, Oxford, 2000, pp. 1–38.[70] T. Schuller, The complementary roles of human and social capital, in: J.F. Helliwell (Ed.), The Contribution of Human and Social Capital to Sustained Economic

Growth and Well-Being, Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), Quebec, 2001, pp. 89–106.[71] T.W. Schultz, Investment in human capital, American Economic Review 51 (1) (1961) 1–16.[72] I. Seidl, C.A. Tisdell, Carrying capacity reconsidered: from Malthus’ population theory to cultural carrying capacity, Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 395–408.[73] A.K. Sen, Commodities and Capabilities, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987, Oxford India Paperbacks.[74] A.K. Sen, Editorial: human capital and human capability, World Development 25 (12) (1997) 1959–1961.[75] A.K. Sen, Development as Freedom, Anchor Books, New York, NY, 1999.[76] J. Sobel, Can we trust social capital? Journal of Economic Literature 40 (1) (2002) 139–154.[77] R.M. Solow, Notes on social capital and economic performance, in: P. Dasgupta, I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, World Bank,

Washington, DC, 1999, pp. 6–12.[78] K.M. Sønderskov, The environment, in: G.T. Svendsen, G.L.H. Svendsen (Eds.), Handbook of Social Capital, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2009, pp. 252–271.[79] T. Strange, A. Bayley, OECD Insights: Sustainable Development, OECD, Paris, 2008.[80] UN, Outcome Document Titled ‘‘The Future We Want ‘‘Adopted at’’ Rio+20’’, The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,

2012,URL: http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/727The%20Future%20We%20Want%2019%20June%201230pm.pdf (Accessed March 21, 2010).[81] I. Van Staveren, Beyond social capital in poverty research, Journal of Economic Issues 37 (2) (2003) 415–423.[82] M. Woolcock, Social capital and economic development, Theory and Society 27 (2) (1998) 151–208.[83] M. Woolcock, The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes, in: J.F. Helliwell (Ed.), The contribution of Human and Social Capital

to Sustained Economic Growth and Well-being, Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), Quebec, 2001, pp. 65–88.[84] World Bank, Overview: Social Capital, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2010, [Online], URL: http://web.worldbank.org/wbsite/external/topics/extsocialde-

velopment/exttsocialcapital/0,contentmdk:20642703�menuPK:401023�pagePK 148956�piPK:216618�theSitePK:401015,00.html (Accessed March 21,2010).

[85] World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987.[86] T.X. Yue, Y.Z. Tian, J.Y. Liu, Z.M. Fan, Surface modelling of human carrying capacity of terrestrial ecosystems in China, Ecological Modelling 214 (2–4) (2008)

168–180.[87] M.W. Foley, B. Edwards, Is it time to disinvest in social capital? Journal of Public Policy 19 (2) (1999) 141–173.