Table 1.

The strength of the socio-ecological metabolism approach, illustrated with examples of current land use strategies.

Land use strategy	Intended benefit	Caveat introduced by a socio-ecological perspective
Land use intensification	Allows land sparing, benefits for biodiversity, carbon sequestration/conservation (see e.g. Green et al., 2005; Burney et al., 2010)	Intensification can result in increased consumption due to increased resource availability, triggering further land use intensification and expansion.
		Allows to generate a more realistic counterfactual to the assumption that consumption levels would stay the same in the light of altered production.
Organic farming	Reduces resource use, in particular of non-renewable resources, reduced carbon emissions	If not paired with reduced consumption, the increased area demand of organic farming can reverse the carbon saving effect, by triggering deforestation or reduce afforestation/regeneration, increased climate impact.
Bioenergy	Substitutes for fossil energy, reduces emissions	Conflict with other land uses; land expansion/deforestation elsewhere, thus increased global emissions; impacts upon food security, in particular of population living from subsistence agriculture.
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD)	Reduce carbon emissions, generate income in rural communities	Land use conflicts can result in considerable leakage and intensification/land expansion elsewhere. Might decrease net income, self-sufficiency and food security in rural areas due to increased dependency on external markets. Additionality and permanence depending on drivers and constraints of land use intensification in non-forested ecosystems.