Source
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1441013 — original source (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Summary
Ranhagen & Frostell (2014) present Eco-cycle Model 2.0, a conceptual multi-level framework for planning and visualising the energy, water and materials/waste resource flows of an eco-district — developed for Stockholm Royal Seaport by KTH and the City of Stockholm as a more dimensioned successor to the influential Hammarby Model. Its substance is a four-level architecture (Level 0 established sustainability theory → Level 1 ecosphere/sociosphere/econosphere anchoring → Level 2 a functions-and-flows map across building-to-world scales → Level 3 annual resource-flow accounts for energy, CO2-equivalents and water, drawn as Sankey diagrams), developed via stakeholder workshops, a Delphi process and back-casting toward a 2030 future image. It is a qualitative framework rather than a dataset. For Neobiome Intelligence its relevance is methodological and as provenance: it is the KTH eco-cycle / industrial-ecology lineage behind the Gullberg (2025) seven-function self-sufficiency framework, and its Scenario A (small-scale self-sufficiency) vs Scenario B (large-scale/centralized) framing — and the conclusion that the realistic 2030 vision combines both — directly mirror a core Neobiome design tension.
Key claims
See key_claims frontmatter (6 claims, all cited to source location).
Neobiome Intelligence relevance
- Provenance of the calculation lineage (NI design). Eco-cycle Model 2.0 sits in the same KTH industrial-ecology / eco-cycle tradition as the Gullberg (2025) seven-function self-sufficiency framework that the NI calculation page captures (LIT_022); its multi-level structure (theory → anchoring → functions/flows map → resource-flow accounting) is the conceptual ancestry of that quantitative work. Feeds the Self-Sufficiency Calculation Framework OT_053.
- Small-scale-self-sufficient vs centralized (the core NI tension). The model’s Scenario A (high self-sufficiency, small-scale) vs Scenario B (large-scale/centralized), resolved as a combination in the 2030 vision, is the same trade-off Neobiome faces — and echoes the individual-PV-vs-microgrid finding in LIT_048 and the centralized-vs-household storage debate in the wiki OT_053.
- Resource-flow accounting as an NI output pattern. The Level-3 idea — annual accounts for energy, CO2-eq and water, reported per total/yr and per person/yr, with external/local/consumption/emissions split and Sankey-diagram communication — is a reusable template for how NI could present a community’s resource balance, and the demand-minimisation-to-maximise-renewable-supply principle aligns with the Gullberg “full SS needs demand-side reduction” finding.
- ⚠ Scope. Qualitative Swedish eco-district feasibility study; no transferable numeric benchmarks. The Swedish-context figures (carbon footprint, the ~1-2% local-supply limit, 80% district heating) are quarantined as context, not NI inputs.
Research targets
Research gaps
- Whether NI formally adopts a multi-level resource-flow-accounting output (energy/CO2/water per total + per-capita, Sankey-style) and how it relates to the Gullberg seven-function metric — a tool-design decision, tracked with the composite-design RTs (RT_006, RT_016, RT_029). No external document to retrieve.
Connections
Links to
Referenced by
Sources (3): LIT_052 · OT_055 · URL_009
Concepts (1): Self-Sufficiency Calculation Framework