[Targets, Goals and Orientors, Muller, Leupelt, Reiche, Breckling, p.3-11]
p.4 All the intentional human actions are directed towards a goal. Even if we seem to be roaming about aimlessly, our inner life is determined by a complex hierarchy of objectives.
p.5 Environmental Targets: The Goals of Sustainability, Integrity and Health... Costanza et al. (1992) define "health" as an ecosystem feature which refers to the basic characteristics: vigor (metabolic activity), organization, and resilience. "Integrity" has been described by Kay (1993) as the ability of a system to maintain its organization and to develop in sequences of self-organized processes, thus integrity comprises health, buffer capacity, and the self-organizational capacity.
p.6 Both, the setting of a goal and the ensuing reflections in order to reach it are intellectual activities.
p.7 Orientors are aspects, notions, properties, or dimensions of systems which can be used as criteria to describe and evaluate the system's developmental stage (Bossel 1992a). The degree of orientor satisfaction which is represented by the distance of an observed state from an optimum point, can be taken as a respective indicator. The combination of degrees of satisfaction from different orientors leads to multiple indications of systemic properties. One focal question will be whether the degree of naturalness and the degree of disturbance in an ecological system can be characterized by such orientors.
[The Physical Basis of Ecological Goal Functions - Fundamentals, Problems and Questions, Muller, Fath, p.15-18]
p.15 The central idea of the orientor approach, which most of the following hypotheses are focused on, originates in modern systems analysis, complexity science and synergetic. It refers to the idea of self-organizing processes, that are able to build up gradients and macroscopic structures from the microscopic "disorder" of non-structured, homogeneous element distributions in open systems, without receiving directing regulations from the outside.
p.15-16 the development of the systems seems to be oriented toward specific points or areas in the state space... The respective state variables which are used to elucidate these dynamics, are termed orientors. Their technical counterparts in modeling are called goal functions. They are variables... which are guiding the systems' functions as well as their structural development... The specific points in the state space that are approached asymptotically, may be described as attractors. Their positions are determined by the potentials of the subsystems, as well as the supersystem of constraints which are limiting the focal system's developmental degrees of freedom.
p.16-17 The first hypothesis suggests nothing more than the existence of orientors: During the development of ecosystems, important measurable properties are regularly optimized.
p.17 The second hypothesis claims the applicability of orientors: Ecological orientors can be used to distinguish systems states and to characterize different systems... The third hypothesis was formulated in the following manner: One set of ecological orientors defines both, the structural and the functional features of the investigated system. Thus, orientors are holistic ecological characteristics... The corresponding strategic questions are: How many of such indicators do we need to describe the whole system satisfactory? How can the single orientor data be aggregated into an applicable indication scheme? Can all the different orientors be treated as equivalent elements? ... can these indicators be integrated into a comprehensive model? Which are the interrelationships between the orientors?
p.18 Ecological orientors... represent a potential for self-organization... orientors can be used for the evaluation of ecosystem states. Modern concepts of ecosystem protection such as health or integrity include the idea that a central goal of environmental management must be the enhancement of the capacity of ecosystems to continue the self-organized development in presence of environmental perturbations. This is a support of adaptability and flexibility and thus an enhancement of the self-organization capacity.
p.18 Ecological orientors are a good basis for finding usable indicators for ecosystem health, ecological integrity, or sustainability.
[Ecological Orientors: Emergence of Basic Orientors in Evolutionary Self-Organization, Bossel, p.19-33]
p.19 System viability is functionally related to both the system and its properties, and to the system's environment and its properties. A system can only exist and prosper in its environment if its structure and functions are adapted to that environment. If a system is to be successful in its environment, the particular features of that environment must be reflected in the system's structure and functions.
p.19-20 The term 'orientor' is used to denote (explicit or implicit) normative concepts that direct behavior and development of systems in general. In the social context, values and norms, objectives and goals are important orientors... The most fundamental orientors, the 'basic orientors', are identical for all complex adaptive systems. Orientors are 'dimensions of concern'; they are not specific goals.
p.20-21 The basic system orientors corresponding to the six basic properties of the system environment are (Bossel 1977, 1992, 1994) 1. existence, 2. effectiveness, 3. freedom of action, 4. security, 5. adaptability, 6. coexistence... Obviously, the system equipped for securing better overall orientor satisfaction will have better fitness, and will therefore have better chance for long-term survival and sustainability (Krebs and Bossel 1977). Quantification of orientor satisfaction therefore provides a measure for system fitness in different environments. This can be done by identifying indicators that tell us how well each of the orientors is being fulfilled at a given time. In other words, the basic orientors provide a checklist for asking suitable questions and defining the proper indicators for finding out how well a particular system is doing in its environment, and how it is contributing to the development of the total system of which it is a part.
p.21 Each of the orientors stands for a unique requirement. That means that a minimum of attention must be paid to each of them, and that compensation of deficits of one orientor by over-fulfillment of other orientors is not possible... Viability, i.e. health and fitness of a system therefore require adequate satisfaction of each of the system's basic orientors... In societal systems, simultaneous attention to basic orientors (or derived criteria) should be applied in all planning processes, decisions, and actions. Comprehensive assessments of system behavior and development must therefore be multi-criteria assessments. In analogy to Liebig's Principle of the Minimum, the system's development will be constrained by the orientor that is currently 'in the minimum'. Particular attention will therefore have to focus on those orientors that are currently deficient.
p.22 In the orientation of system behavior, we deal with a two-phase assessment process where each phase is different from the other. Phase 1: First, a certain minimum satisfaction must be obtained separately for each of the basic orientors. A deficit in even one of the orientors threatens long-term survival. The system will have to focus its attention on this deficit. Phase 2: Only if the required minimum satisfaction of all basic orientors is guaranteed is it permissible to try to raise system satisfaction by improving satisfaction of individual orientors further - if conditions, in particular other systems, will allow this.
p.22 The basic orientor proposition has three important implications:
- If a system evolves in a normal environment, then that environment forces it to implicitly or explicitly ensure minimum and balanced satisfaction of each of the basic orientors.
- If a system has successfully evolved in a normal environment, its behavior will exhibit balanced satisfaction of each of the basic orientors.
- If a system is to be designed for a given environment, proper and balanced attention must be paid to satisfaction of each of the basic orientors.
p.22 In many systems, in particular ecosystems, 'goal functions' are often more immediately obvious than the basic orientors that cause the emergence of these goal functions in the first place. Goal functions can be viewed as appearing on a level below the basic orientors in the hierarchical orientation system. They translate the fundamental system needs expressed in the basic orientors into concrete goals linking system response to environmental properties... Ecosystem goal functions emerge as general ecosystem properties in the coevolution of ecosystem and environment. They can be viewed as ecosystem-specific responses to the need to satisfy the basic orientors.
p.22 The emergence of basic orientors in response to the general properties of environments can be deduced from general systems theory, as has been done here, but supporting empirical evidence and related theoretical concepts can also be found in such fields as psychology, sociology, and the study of artificial life.
[Thermodynamic Orientors: Exergy as a Goals Function in Ecological Modeling and as an Ecological Indicator for the Description of Ecosystem Development, Jorgensen, Nielsen, p.63-86]
p.64 Exergy... measures the energy that can do work
[Thermodynamic Orientors: Exergy as a Holistic Ecosystem Indicator: A Case Study, Marques, Pardal, Nielsen, Jorgensen, p.87-101]
p.87 In structurally dynamic models... changes may be simulated using goal functions to guide ecosystem behavior and development.
[Network Orientors: Theoretical and Philosophical Considerations why Ecosystems may Exhibit a Propensity to Increase Ascendency, Ulanowicz, p.177-192]
p.190 Probabilistic goal functions do not "drive" the system toward a fixed, pre-determined endpoint, as is the common, deterministic notion of a goal function. Rather, probability operators behave more like Bossel's (1987) "orientator" functions, which merely guide the system along a vague direction.
[Case Studies: Modeling Approaches for the Practical Application of Ecological Goal Functions, Nielsen, Jorgensen, Marques. p.243-254]
p.243 Some of the goal functions suggested by various authors within the science of modern ecosystem theory have been applied to case studies... it may be necessary to apply several of the functions at the same time in order to gain a full understanding of the system.
p.243-244 During the recent decades it has become clear that the traditional deterministic approach for the establishment of ecosystem models is not adequate. In an increasing number of situations, model predictions have been observed to fail. Perhaps, this is not surprising after all when taking into account the complexity of such systems as well as the relations and feed-back mechanisms which are involved.
The models have typically failed when large shifts in external or internal relations have occurred... In short, the models fail because they lack one important feature of natural ecosystems which can be summarized under one word: adaptability... Hence, this results in a demand for the future models to be more flexible. On the basis of this demand the approach of the Structural Dynamic Modeling was developed.
p.244 Structural Dynamic Models are able to adjust the ecosystem's structure and dynamics in accordance with a trade off between internal capacities for change matched with demands induced by the prevailing conditions. The need for adjustment implicitly bears the requirement of some sort of function, in mathematics such type of function is usually referred to as goal function, that can serve to evaluate the state of the system, i.e. if one state is performing "better" than the other... What happens in the system is solely determined by the compartments of the system, their existing possibilities, as well as its new ones, and the network, the processes and feed-back interactions alone. The combination and structure is subjected to selection where one performance can be evaluated as better than the other, in accordance with a fully materialistic derived principle... This is the basic philosophy and justification of applications of goal functions in ecosystem models. [JLJ seems like a great approach for game theory]
p.244 by its self-organizing properties, the system governs itself (teleonomy) so that it happens that system performance is reflected in, and can be expressed by, a mathematical function that is continuously increasing during undisturbed development of the system. Thus, it seems that the given function becomes optimized, and it can thus serve as a goal function to the system's development.
p.251 The optimizations have to be constrained. Mathematical algorithms, in general, tend to optimize parameters into unrealistic values. Mathematical algorithm have to be constrained either internally i.e. included in the algorithm, or there has to be a constraint from the outside.
[The Physical Basis of Ecological Goal Functions - An Integrative Discussion, Muller, Fath, p.269-285]
p.269 It is shown that the basic orientor approach allows comprehensive assessments of the fitness, performance, and viability of different types of systems.
p.272 According to Bossel... the term orientor is "used to denote normative concepts that direct the behavior and the development of systems in general..." Orientors are aspects, notions, properties, or dimensions of systems. Orientors can be used as criteria to describe and evaluate a system's developmental stage (Bossel 1992, 1994). The corresponding ecological state variables will be called orientors in this text, reflecting the fact that their dynamics seems to be oriented toward certain attractor points.
Goal functions are technical counterparts of orientors in ecological modeling. They are mathematical functions that describe the direction of ecosystem development as a consequence of its self-organizing ability. This capacity enables the system to meet perturbations by directive reactions which can be described by goal functions (Jorgensen and Nielsen in Sect. 2.7)... Jorgensen and Nielsen write in Sect. 2.4 that "the term goal function should solely be applied in the modeling context, while the term ecological indicator is more appropriate to discuss the propensities that characterize the development of ecosystems."
p.272-273 the term "propensity"... characterizes the uncertainties which are connected with ecological dynamics: "The system is not driven toward a certain endpoint. Rather, the probabilistic orientors guide the system in a vague direction" (Ulanowicz, Sect. 2.10). The orientation propensity describes the tendency of a certain event to occur under given circumstances, whereby the dynamics of the surroundings... have to be included as well as the respective probabilities.
p.273 In many of the papers it has been postulated that the dynamics of orientors is the result of dissipative self-organizing processes, which generally can be characterized by the transformation of microscopic disorder into macroscopically ordered structures (Muller et al. 1997).
p.274 The self-organized processes create internal gradients in the system. With these gradients, spatio-temporal structures and heterogeneity arise which can be passed over to functional hierarchies.
p.274 all ecosystem properties can be comprehended as concentration gradients in space and time. They build up the potentials to carry out mechanical work, chemical reactions or biological interactions. Ecosystem function can therefore be defined as the general characteristic of the system's gradient dynamics.
[Introduction: Philosophical Aspects of Goal Functions, Barkmann, Breckling, Potthast, Badura, p.289-297]
p.290 Critics of the goal function approach argue that talking about 'goal' functions implicitly attributes intentions into natural processes... "Optimal states" of biological systems are often identified by reference to theoretically devised measures of the capacity of the system to self-organize (Muller et al. 1997). Thus the notion of an internal goal or aim ecological systems tend to move towards resembles the contested general idea of an internal directionality in nature.
p.291 The idea of a purposeful goal (telos), inherent to a system and determining its changes, is inaccessible to scientific methods... A goal function, e.g., can be used in ecological modeling as a forcing function for directed system processes and development. As many biological developments are thought of as self-organizing activities, the "goal" resides "in" the system itself
p.292 Neither ecosystems nor evolutionary processes possess goals in themselves. Scientifically, we can only observe the occurrence of certain developmental tendencies or trends. These are, however, often occluded because contradicting evolutionary or successive trends act simultaneously within one single system... However, evolutionary trends can be interpreted in retrospective only. In this post hoc view it appears to an observer as if a certain development follows a particular goal. A strict distinction between process and this "as-if goal" is not useful because evolution is self-organizing, and the direction of further development changes together with the state of the process relative to the evolutionary flux in the environment. Thus, it makes sense to talk about "goals" in natural systems at best in a metaphorical sense.
p.293 Ecosystems exhibit developmental trends... hypotheses explain some phenomena essential to the successional development... a goal function may be constructed, which incorporates the... essence of these tendencies... From an explanatory point of view, the goal function can be regarded as the driving factor of ecosystem change: it is an expression of the self-organizing capacity of the system in question... it appears as real as the developments it causes... realists observe goal functions at work in ecosystems.
p.294 The ecosystem concept provides a framework for the collection and interpretation of ecological data. It is a highly abstracted model for the local interaction of biotic and abiotic agents.
p.296 The concept of sustainable development provides... a framework for human centered goals to attain a balanced satisfaction of fundamental "interests" of natural systems... to monitor sustainable development, indicators and standards for sustainability have to be available.
[Constructions of Environmental Issues in Scientific and Public Discourse, Metzner, p.312-333]
p.312 Environmental problems do not establish themselves on the public agenda. "They must be 'constructed' by individuals or organizations who define pollution or some other objective condition as worrisome and seek to do something about it" (Hannigan 1995, p 2).
[Ecosystem and Society: Orientation for Sustainable Development, Bossel, p.366-380]
p.367-368 The development of human systems is governed by a number of characteristic conditions that are beyond human power to change... This implies that sustainable development of human societies cannot be discussed by reducing the problem merely to either physical aspects, or those of the natural environment, or those of human society, or even of ideology. The principles governing human society are only part of the story - which is simply not complete without simultaneously considering human goals and values, physical laws, system principles, ecosystem constraints, and 'eco targets'.
To deal with this complex problem, it is necessary to synthesize a perspective by integrating concepts from many different scientific fields... It focuses on the question: "What general principles can be formulated to guide sustainable development?" ...In searching for principles to guide sustainable development, it is only natural to have a closer look at the global ecosystem, which has demonstrated sustainability over a few billion years. Ecosystems are working models of sustainable complex systems, and it is reasonable to study them for clues for the sustainable management of the human enterprise.
p.368 The nature... of dynamic and evolving systems in general... must be reflected in the search for general principles of sustainable development.
p.370-371 As in evolution, prediction of the future development of human systems is not possible. However, major forces and trends shaping future development can be identified. These natural and system forces restrict the spectrum of future paths to a subset of possible paths. Among these, orientor imapct assessment can help to identify desirable paths (Bossel 1997, 1998).
p.379 Complex adaptive systems such as ecosystems or human systems cannot operate without the normative guidance of an orientation system... Orienting concepts, such as 'eco targets', basic orientors, goal functions etc. can only be inferred from system behavior by an observer in the latter case... there is evidence from experiments with artificial life... that basic orientors of complex adaptive systems... are not subjective figments of human imagination, but fundamental system requirements that emerge in response to environmental challenges
p.379 In the organisms, species, and ecosystems that have developed successfully in millions of years of evolution, balanced attention to the basic orientors has evolved for securing viability and sustainability. In the concrete system/ environment interaction, the basic orientor requirements have been translated into goal functions of practical system behavior and function... Since human systems are complex adaptive systems, their orientation systems are also partially shaped by emergent orientors reflecting the system / environment interaction.
[Targets, Goals, and Orientors: Concluding and Re-Initializing the Discussion, Muller, Barkmann, Breckling, Leupelt, Reiche, Zolitz-Moller, p.593-607]
p.597 The orientor principles as well as the goal function concept originate from general systems analysis and synergetics, that investigate the fundamental processes of self-organization.
