13 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 13
- ItemOur future in the Anthropocene biosphere(Dordrecht : Springer Netherlands, 2021) Folke, Carl; Polasky, Stephen; Rockström, Johan; Galaz, Victor; Westley, Frances; Lamont, Michèle; Scheffer, Marten; Österblom, Henrik; Carpenter, Stephen R.; Chapin, F. Stuart; Seto, Karen C.; Weber, Elke U.; Crona, Beatrice I.; Daily, Gretchen C.; Dasgupta, Partha; Gaffney, Owen; Gordon, Line J.; Hoff, Holger; Levin, Simon A.; Lubchenco, Jane; Steffen, Will; Walker, Brian H.The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed an interconnected and tightly coupled globalized world in rapid change. This article sets the scientific stage for understanding and responding to such change for global sustainability and resilient societies. We provide a systemic overview of the current situation where people and nature are dynamically intertwined and embedded in the biosphere, placing shocks and extreme events as part of this dynamic; humanity has become the major force in shaping the future of the Earth system as a whole; and the scale and pace of the human dimension have caused climate change, rapid loss of biodiversity, growing inequalities, and loss of resilience to deal with uncertainty and surprise. Taken together, human actions are challenging the biosphere foundation for a prosperous development of civilizations. The Anthropocene reality—of rising system-wide turbulence—calls for transformative change towards sustainable futures. Emerging technologies, social innovations, broader shifts in cultural repertoires, as well as a diverse portfolio of active stewardship of human actions in support of a resilient biosphere are highlighted as essential parts of such transformations. © 2021, The Author(s).
- ItemThe Berlin principles on one health - Bridging global health and conservation(Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 2020) Gruetzmacher, Kim; Karesh, William B.; Amuasi, John H.; Arshad, Adnan; Farlow, Andrew; Gabrysch, Sabine; Jetzkowitz, Jens; Lieberman, Susan; Palmer, Clare; Winkler, Andrea S.; Walzer, ChrisFor over 15-years, proponents of the One Health approach have worked to consistently interweave components that should never have been separated and now more than ever need to be re-connected: the health of humans, non-human animals, and ecosystems. We have failed to heed the warning signs. A One Health approach is paramount in directing our future health in this acutely and irrevocably changed world. COVID-19 has shown us the exorbitant cost of inaction. The time to act is now. © 2020
- ItemDo Benefits from Dynamic Tariffing Rise? Welfare Effects of Real-Time Retail Pricing Under Carbon Taxation and Variable Renewable Electricity Supply(Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 2020) Gambardella, Christian; Pahle, Michael; Schill, Wolf-PeterWe analyze the gross welfare gains from real-time retail pricing in electricity markets where carbon taxation induces investment in variable renewable technologies. Applying a stylized numerical electricity market model, we find a U-shaped association between carbon taxation and gross welfare gains. The benefits of introducing real-time pricing can accordingly be relatively low at relatively high carbon taxes and vice versa. The non-monotonous change in welfare gains can be explained by corresponding changes in the inefficiency arising from “under-consumption” during low-price periods rather than by changes in wholesale price volatility. Our results may cast doubt on the efficiency of ongoing roll-outs of advanced meters in many electricity markets, since net benefits might only materialize at relatively high carbon tax levels and renewable supply shares. © 2019, The Author(s).
- ItemMulti-method evidence for when and how climate-related disasters contribute to armed conflict risk(Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2020) Ide, Tobias; Brzoska, Michael; Donges, Jonathan F.; Schleussner, Carl-FriedrichClimate-related disasters are among the most societally disruptive impacts of anthropogenic climate change. Their potential impact on the risk of armed conflict is heavily debated in the context of the security implications of climate change. Yet, evidence for such climate-conflict-disaster links remains limited and contested. One reason for this is that existing studies do not triangulate insights from different methods and pay little attention to relevant context factors and especially causal pathways. By combining statistical approaches with systematic evidence from QCA and qualitative case studies in an innovative multi-method research design, we show that climate-related disasters increase the risk of armed conflict onset. This link is highly context-dependent and we find that countries with large populations, political exclusion of ethnic groups, and a low level of human development are particularly vulnerable. For such countries, almost one third of all conflict onsets over the 1980-2016 period have been preceded by a disaster within 7 days. The robustness of the effect is reduced for longer time spans. Case study evidence points to improved opportunity structures for armed groups rather than aggravated grievances as the main mechanism connecting disasters and conflict onset. © 2020 The Authors
- ItemAssessment of the growth in social groups for sustainable agriculture and land management(Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020) Pretty, Jules; Attwood, Simon; Bawden, Richard; van den Berg, Henk; Bharucha, Zareen P.; Dixon, John; Butler Flora, Cornelia; Gallagher, Kevin; Genskow, Ken; Hartley, Sue E.; Ketelaar, Jan Willem; Kiara, Japhet K.; Kumar, Vijay; Lu, Yuelai; MacMillan, Tom; Maréchal, Anne; Morales-Abubakar, Alma Linda; Noble, Andrew; Prasad, P. V. Vara; Rametsteiner, Ewald; Reganold, John; Ricks, Jacob I.; Rockström, Johan; Saito, Osamu; Thorne, Peter; Wang, Songliang; Wittman, Hannah; Winter, Michael; Yang, PuyunNon-technical summary Until the past half-century, all agriculture and land management was framed by local institutions strong in social capital. But neoliberal forms of development came to undermine existing structures, thus reducing sustainability and equity. The past 20 years, though, have seen the deliberate establishment of more than 8 million new social groups across the world. This restructuring and growth of rural social capital within specific territories is leading to increased productivity of agricultural and land management systems, with particular benefits for those previously excluded. Further growth would occur with more national and regional policy support. Technical summary For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later twentieth and early twenty-first centuries prioritized unfettered individual action over the collective, and many rural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements, networks and federations have emerged to support transitions towards sustainability and equity. Here, we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally formed collaborative groups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on: (1) integrated pest management; (2) forests; (3) land; (4) water; (5) pastures; (6) support services; (7) innovation platforms; and (8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that the number of groups has grown from 0.50 million (in 2000) to 8.54 million (in 2020). The area of land transformed by the 170–255 million group members is 300 Mha, mostly in less-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers working with scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomes and agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supported this growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups could now support further transitions towards policies and behaviours for global sustainability. Social media summary Millions of geographically based new social groups are leading to more sustainable agriculture and forestry worldwide. © The Author(s), 2020.
- ItemShared Socio-economic Pathways for European agriculture and food systems: The Eur-Agri-SSPs(Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2020) Le Mouël, Chantal; Mathijs, Erik; Mehdi, Bano; Mittenzwei, Klaus; Mora, Olivier; Øistad, Knut; Øygarden, Lillian; Priess, Jörg A.; Reidsma, Pytrik; Schaldach, Rüdiger; Schönhart, Martin; Mitter, Hermine; Techen, Anja-K.; Sinabell, Franz; Helming, Katharina; Schmid, Erwin; Bodirsky, Benjamin L.; Holman, Ian; Kok, Kasper; Lehtonen, Heikki; Leip, AdrianScenarios describe plausible and internally consistent views of the future. They can be used by scientists, policymakers and entrepreneurs to explore the challenges of global environmental change given an appropriate level of spatial and sectoral detail and systematic development. We followed a nine-step protocol to extend and enrich a set of global scenarios – the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) – providing regional and sectoral detail for European agriculture and food systems using a one-to-one nesting participatory approach. The resulting five Eur-Agri-SSPs are titled (1) Agriculture on sustainable paths, (2) Agriculture on established paths, (3) Agriculture on separated paths, (4) Agriculture on unequal paths, and (5) Agriculture on high-tech paths. They describe alternative plausible qualitative evolutions of multiple drivers of particular importance and high uncertainty for European agriculture and food systems. The added value of the protocol-based storyline development process lies in the conceptual and methodological transparency and rigor; the stakeholder driven selection of the storyline elements; and consistency checks within and between the storylines. Compared to the global SSPs, the five Eur-Agri-SSPs provide rich thematic and regional details and are thus a solid basis for integrated assessments of agriculture and food systems and their response to future socio-economic and environmental changes. © 2020 The Author(s)
- ItemCorona and the climate: A comparison of two emergencies(Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020) Vinke, Kira; Gabrysch, Sabine; Paoletti, Emanuela; Rockström, Johan; Schellnhuber, Hans JoachimSocial media summary Lessons from the corona crisis can help manage the even more daunting challenge of anthropogenic global warming. © The Author(s), 2020.
- ItemMultiple cropping systems of the world and the potential for increasing cropping intensity(Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2020) Waha, Katharina; Dietrich, Jan Philipp; Portmann, Felix T.; Siebert, Stefan; Thornton, Philip K.; Bondeau, Alberte; Herrero, MarioMultiple cropping, defined as harvesting more than once a year, is a widespread land management strategy in tropical and subtropical agriculture. It is a way of intensifying agricultural production and diversifying the crop mix for economic and environmental benefits. Here we present the first global gridded data set of multiple cropping systems and quantify the physical area of more than 200 systems, the global multiple cropping area and the potential for increasing cropping intensity. We use national and sub-national data on monthly crop-specific growing areas around the year 2000 (1998–2002) for 26 crop groups, global cropland extent and crop harvested areas to identify sequential cropping systems of two or three crops with non-overlapping growing seasons. We find multiple cropping systems on 135 million hectares (12% of global cropland) with 85 million hectares in irrigated agriculture. 34%, 13% and 10% of the rice, wheat and maize area, respectively are under multiple cropping, demonstrating the importance of such cropping systems for cereal production. Harvesting currently single cropped areas a second time could increase global harvested areas by 87–395 million hectares, which is about 45% lower than previous estimates. Some scenarios of intensification indicate that it could be enough land to avoid expanding physical cropland into other land uses but attainable intensification will depend on the local context and the crop yields attainable in the second cycle and its related environmental costs. © 2020 The Author(s)
- ItemDiscourses of climate delay(Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020) Lamb, William F.; Mattioli, Giulio; Levi, Sebastian; Roberts, J. Timmons; Capstick, Stuart; Creutzig, Felix; Minx, Jan C.; Müller-Hansen, Finn; Culhane, Trevor; Steinberger, Julia K.Non-technical summary: Discourses of climate delay' pervade current debates on climate action. These discourses accept the existence of climate change, but justify inaction or inadequate efforts. In contemporary discussions on what actions should be taken, by whom and how fast, proponents of climate delay would argue for minimal action or action taken by others. They focus attention on the negative social effects of climate policies and raise doubt that mitigation is possible. Here, we outline the common features of climate delay discourses and provide a guide to identifying them. Technical summary: Through our collective observations as social scientists studying climate change, we describe 12 climate delay discourses and develop a typology based on their underlying logic. Delay discourses can be grouped into those that: (1) redirect responsibility; (2) push non-transformative solutions; (3) emphasize the downsides of climate policies; or (4) surrender to climate change. These discourses are distinct from climate denialism, climate-impact scepticism and ad hominem attacks, but are often used in combination to erode public and political support for climate policies. A deeper investigation of climate delay discourses is necessary in order to understand their prevalence and to develop inoculation strategies that protect the public from their intended effects. Our typology enables scientists, climate advocates and policymakers to recognize and counter these arguments when they are used. We urge all proponents of climate action to address these common misrepresentations of the climate crisis and to better communicate the dramatic pace of global warming, the gravity of its impacts and the possibility of effective and just mitigation policies. Social media summary: Discourses of climate delay: redirect responsibility, push non-transformative solutions, emphasize downsides, surrender. © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Cambridge University Press.
- ItemAdvances in Understanding and Managing Catastrophic Ecosystem Shifts in Mediterranean Ecosystems(Lausanne : Frontiers Media, 2020) van den Elsen, Erik; Stringer, Lindsay C.; De Ita, Cecilia; Hessel, Rudi; Kéfi, Sonia; Schneider, Florian D.; Bautista, Susana; Mayor, Angeles G.; Baudena, Mara; Rietkerk, Max; Valdecantos, Alejandro; Vallejo, Victoriano R.; Geeson, Nichola; Brandt, C. Jane; Fleskens, Luuk; Hemerik, Lia; Panagos, Panos; Valente, Sandra; Keizer, Jan J.; Schwilch, Gudrun; Jucker Riva, Matteo; Sietz, Diana; Christoforou, Michalakis; Hadjimitsis, Diofantos G.; Papoutsa, Christiana; Quaranta, Giovanni; Salvia, Rosanna; Tsanis, Ioannis K.; Daliakopoulos, Ioannis; Claringbould, Heleen; de Ruiter, Peter C.One of the most challenging issues in Mediterranean ecosystems to date has been to understand the emergence of discontinuous changes or catastrophic shifts. In the era of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, which encompass ideas around Land Degradation Neutrality, advancing this understanding has become even more critical and urgent. The aim of this paper is to synthesize insights into the drivers, processes and management of catastrophic shifts to highlight ways forward for the management of Mediterranean ecosystems. We use a multidisciplinary approach that extends beyond the typical single site, single scale, single approach studies in the current literature. We link applied and theoretical ecology at multiple scales with analyses and modeling of human–environment–climate relations and stakeholder engagement in six field sites in Mediterranean ecosystems to address three key questions: How do major degradation drivers affect ecosystem functioning and services in Mediterranean ecosystems? What processes happen in the soil and vegetation during a catastrophic shift? How can management of vulnerable ecosystems be optimized using these findings? Drawing together the findings from the use of different approaches allows us to address the whole pipeline of changes from drivers through to action. We highlight ways to assess ecosystem vulnerability that can help to prevent ecosystem shifts to undesirable states; identify cost-effective management measures that align with the vision and plans of land users; and evaluate the timing of these measures to enable optimization of their application before thresholds are reached. Such a multidisciplinary approach enables improved identification of early warning signals for discontinuous changes informing more timely and cost-effective management, allowing anticipation of, adaptation to, or even prevention of, undesirable catastrophic ecosystem shifts. © Copyright © 2020 van den Elsen, Stringer, De Ita, Hessel, Kéfi, Schneider, Bautista, Mayor, Baudena, Rietkerk, Valdecantos, Vallejo, Geeson, Brandt, Fleskens, Hemerik, Panagos, Valente, Keizer, Schwilch, Jucker Riva, Sietz, Christoforou, Hadjimitsis, Papoutsa, Quaranta, Salvia, Tsanis, Daliakopoulos, Claringbould and de Ruiter.