Non-technical Summary As adaptation deficits become increasingly evident and widespread, barriers to adaptation draw more attention as a key reason. However, the current understanding of the barriers is limited, making it challenging to provide practical solutions for real-world adaptation policy processes. This study aims to identify the origins, influences, and relationships of common barriers to national adaptation policy processes, and to analyse their causal mechanisms. The findings present a barrier map that illustrates potential causal mechanisms of common barriers to national adaptation policy processes and, based on it, suggest a systematic approach for practical solutions. Technical Summary Despite progress in national adaptation policies in the last two decades, the adaptation deficit is getting wider and barriers to adaptation are regarded as a key reason for it. However, our understanding of barriers to adaptation does not help improve real adaptation processes. Based on South Korean and UK cases, this study identified 17 common barriers to national adaptation policy processes and placed them in four categories. It also identified the barriers' origins and influences, drew a common barrier map underlying national adaptation policy processes and identified causal mechanisms of the common barriers, which were limitedly addressed in the earlier literature. The results highlight that understanding the causal mechanisms of barriers to national adaptation policy processes is important to devise practical solutions to overcome barriers and improve the effectiveness of real adaptation processes. The findings also offer a practical understanding of common barriers to national adaptation policy, which can help adaptation policy stakeholders and practitioners to diagnose policy problems, analyse what barriers and origins are related to the problems, decide what should be addressed first to solve the problems, and ultimately make efforts to reduce the current adaptation deficit. Social Media Summary New study identifies causal mechanisms of 17 common barriers to national adaptation policy processes & suggests a systematic approach to overcome the barriers.
{"title":"Causal mechanisms of common barriers to national adaptation policy processes and practical solutions in South Korea and the UK","authors":"Seunghan Lee, J. Paavola, S. Dessai","doi":"10.1017/sus.2023.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.10","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical Summary As adaptation deficits become increasingly evident and widespread, barriers to adaptation draw more attention as a key reason. However, the current understanding of the barriers is limited, making it challenging to provide practical solutions for real-world adaptation policy processes. This study aims to identify the origins, influences, and relationships of common barriers to national adaptation policy processes, and to analyse their causal mechanisms. The findings present a barrier map that illustrates potential causal mechanisms of common barriers to national adaptation policy processes and, based on it, suggest a systematic approach for practical solutions. Technical Summary Despite progress in national adaptation policies in the last two decades, the adaptation deficit is getting wider and barriers to adaptation are regarded as a key reason for it. However, our understanding of barriers to adaptation does not help improve real adaptation processes. Based on South Korean and UK cases, this study identified 17 common barriers to national adaptation policy processes and placed them in four categories. It also identified the barriers' origins and influences, drew a common barrier map underlying national adaptation policy processes and identified causal mechanisms of the common barriers, which were limitedly addressed in the earlier literature. The results highlight that understanding the causal mechanisms of barriers to national adaptation policy processes is important to devise practical solutions to overcome barriers and improve the effectiveness of real adaptation processes. The findings also offer a practical understanding of common barriers to national adaptation policy, which can help adaptation policy stakeholders and practitioners to diagnose policy problems, analyse what barriers and origins are related to the problems, decide what should be addressed first to solve the problems, and ultimately make efforts to reduce the current adaptation deficit. Social Media Summary New study identifies causal mechanisms of 17 common barriers to national adaptation policy processes & suggests a systematic approach to overcome the barriers.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44517321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Non-technical summary Changes in language used in long term climate policy can undermine their credibility and discourage climate action. Previous IPCC reports have promoted an idea of reaching ‘global net zero’ (GNZ) emissions by 2050 in order to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. In the latest IPCC Report, this language has been changed. To understand the impact of this change, we survey COP 26 participants to test their willingness to accept a shift in long term policy goals. We find a low tolerance for a change and, indeed, there is substantial finance, business and political effort behind the idea of reaching GNZ by 2050. This suggests that GNZ by 2050 will remain central to climate action. Technical summary Consistency in language in long term policy goals is central to building a (political) constituency in support of the Paris Agreement. Changes in language can undermine policy credibility, and stall effective mitigation action. Recent changes in IPCC language to describe ‘global net zero’ (GNZ) as being reached in the ‘early or mid 2050s’ (AR6 WG1) could risk undermining the substantial cultural, political and financial momentum that has developed behind the interpretation – first developed by the IPCC SR 1.5 °C Report – that GNZ must be reached by 2050. We survey COP 26 participants to test their willingness to accept a shift in policy goals and find a strong preference for a ‘stable’ long term policy target, widely interpreted as reaching ‘GNZ by 2050’, and a rejection of flexibility in long term policy targets, even as new scientific information becomes available. ‘GNZ by 2050’ is no longer a science based target, but has transitioned to a cultural and political metaphor actively used by stakeholders to guide their climate decision making. This makes ‘GNZ by 2050’ no less valid than the original scientific concept. This may stimulate further ‘political calibration’ or between the policy and modelling communities. Social media summary Sig. momentum is behind global net zero by 2050.Will changes in IPCC mitigation language de-rail global climate action?
{"title":"Does a change in the ‘global net zero’ language matter?","authors":"Hannah Parris, A. Anger-Kraavi, G. Peters","doi":"10.1017/sus.2023.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.11","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Changes in language used in long term climate policy can undermine their credibility and discourage climate action. Previous IPCC reports have promoted an idea of reaching ‘global net zero’ (GNZ) emissions by 2050 in order to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. In the latest IPCC Report, this language has been changed. To understand the impact of this change, we survey COP 26 participants to test their willingness to accept a shift in long term policy goals. We find a low tolerance for a change and, indeed, there is substantial finance, business and political effort behind the idea of reaching GNZ by 2050. This suggests that GNZ by 2050 will remain central to climate action. Technical summary Consistency in language in long term policy goals is central to building a (political) constituency in support of the Paris Agreement. Changes in language can undermine policy credibility, and stall effective mitigation action. Recent changes in IPCC language to describe ‘global net zero’ (GNZ) as being reached in the ‘early or mid 2050s’ (AR6 WG1) could risk undermining the substantial cultural, political and financial momentum that has developed behind the interpretation – first developed by the IPCC SR 1.5 °C Report – that GNZ must be reached by 2050. We survey COP 26 participants to test their willingness to accept a shift in policy goals and find a strong preference for a ‘stable’ long term policy target, widely interpreted as reaching ‘GNZ by 2050’, and a rejection of flexibility in long term policy targets, even as new scientific information becomes available. ‘GNZ by 2050’ is no longer a science based target, but has transitioned to a cultural and political metaphor actively used by stakeholders to guide their climate decision making. This makes ‘GNZ by 2050’ no less valid than the original scientific concept. This may stimulate further ‘political calibration’ or between the policy and modelling communities. Social media summary Sig. momentum is behind global net zero by 2050.Will changes in IPCC mitigation language de-rail global climate action?","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43550730","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
S. Pastorino, Laura Cornelsen, Soledad Cuevas García-Dorado, A. Dangour, J. Milner, A. Milojevic, P. Scheelbeek, P. Wilkinson, R. Green
Non-Technical Summary To meet the UK's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) recommended to reduce current meat and dairy intake by 20% by 2030. In this study, we modelled the impact of potential dietary changes on GHG emissions and water use with the selected scenarios based on the trend of food purchase and meat and dairy reduction policy. We show that implementing fiscal measures and facilitating innovations in production of meat alternatives would accelerate existing positive trends, help the UK reach the CCC 2030 target of 20% meat and dairy reduction and increase fruit and vegetable intake. Technical Summary We used 2001–2019 data from the Family Food module of the Living Costs and Food Survey (LCF), an annual UK survey of about 5,000 representative households recording quantities of all food and drink purchases, to model four 2030 dietary scenarios: Business as usual (BAU); two fiscal policy scenarios (‘fiscal 10%’ and ‘fiscal 20%’), combining either a 10% meat and dairy tax and a 10% fruit and vegetable subsidy, or a 20% tax and 20% subsidy on the same foods; and an ‘innovation scenario’ substituting traditionally-produced meat and dairy with plant-based analogues and animal proteins produced in laboratories. Compared to 2019 levels, we forecasted reductions in the range of 5–30% for meat and 8–32% for dairy across scenarios. Meat reductions could be up to 21.5% (fiscal20%) and 30.4% (innovation). For all scenarios we forecasted an increase in fruit and vegetables intake in the range of 3–13.5%; with the fiscal 20% scenario showing highest increases (13.5%). GHG emissions and water use reductions were highest for the innovation scenario (−19.8%, −16.2%) followed by fiscal 20% (−15.8%, −9.2%) fiscal 10% (−12.1%, 5.9%) and BAU (−8.3%, −2.6%) scenarios. Compared to average households, low-income households had similar patterns of change, but both past and predicted purchase of meat, fruit and vegetables and environmental footprints were lower. Social Media Summary Meat and dairy-reduction policies would help meet net zero targets and improve population health in the UK.
{"title":"The future of meat and dairy consumption in the UK: exploring different policy scenarios to meet net zero targets and improve population health","authors":"S. Pastorino, Laura Cornelsen, Soledad Cuevas García-Dorado, A. Dangour, J. Milner, A. Milojevic, P. Scheelbeek, P. Wilkinson, R. Green","doi":"10.1017/sus.2023.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.9","url":null,"abstract":"Non-Technical Summary To meet the UK's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) recommended to reduce current meat and dairy intake by 20% by 2030. In this study, we modelled the impact of potential dietary changes on GHG emissions and water use with the selected scenarios based on the trend of food purchase and meat and dairy reduction policy. We show that implementing fiscal measures and facilitating innovations in production of meat alternatives would accelerate existing positive trends, help the UK reach the CCC 2030 target of 20% meat and dairy reduction and increase fruit and vegetable intake. Technical Summary We used 2001–2019 data from the Family Food module of the Living Costs and Food Survey (LCF), an annual UK survey of about 5,000 representative households recording quantities of all food and drink purchases, to model four 2030 dietary scenarios: Business as usual (BAU); two fiscal policy scenarios (‘fiscal 10%’ and ‘fiscal 20%’), combining either a 10% meat and dairy tax and a 10% fruit and vegetable subsidy, or a 20% tax and 20% subsidy on the same foods; and an ‘innovation scenario’ substituting traditionally-produced meat and dairy with plant-based analogues and animal proteins produced in laboratories. Compared to 2019 levels, we forecasted reductions in the range of 5–30% for meat and 8–32% for dairy across scenarios. Meat reductions could be up to 21.5% (fiscal20%) and 30.4% (innovation). For all scenarios we forecasted an increase in fruit and vegetables intake in the range of 3–13.5%; with the fiscal 20% scenario showing highest increases (13.5%). GHG emissions and water use reductions were highest for the innovation scenario (−19.8%, −16.2%) followed by fiscal 20% (−15.8%, −9.2%) fiscal 10% (−12.1%, 5.9%) and BAU (−8.3%, −2.6%) scenarios. Compared to average households, low-income households had similar patterns of change, but both past and predicted purchase of meat, fruit and vegetables and environmental footprints were lower. Social Media Summary Meat and dairy-reduction policies would help meet net zero targets and improve population health in the UK.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44229186","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
R. O'Ryan, A. Villavicencio, Joaquín Gajardo, A. Ulloa, Cecilia Ibarra, M. Rojas
Non-technical summary The significant outlays by countries in the Global South to recover from the COVID-19 crisis could have been an opportunity to build back better, advancing both a green recovery and addressing pressing social problems, thus advancing sustainability. To examine if this was the case, in this paper we analyze the expected impacts of recovery initiatives in five Latin American countries. Our results show that these programs do not support the possibility of building back better, weakly impacting 12 dimensions related to sustainability. We also propose a methodology to improve how sustainability concerns can be included in future choice of projects. Technical summary It has been argued that the significant outlays by governments across the world required to recover from the COVID-19 crisis can be an opportunity to build back better, that is, advance toward greener societies. In the Global South, which suffered acute social, economic and environmental problems prior to this health crisis, recovery initiatives would be best suited to focus on sustainable economic recovery which – along with the environmental concerns of a green recovery – could address pressing local problems. To this end, we analyzed the expected impacts of recovery initiatives in five Latin American countries on each of 71 sustainability criteria. These criteria are based on the UN sustainable development goals and other relevant literature related to sustainable development. Using principal component analysis, criteria are grouped into 12 dimensions. Our results show that recovery programs examined do not take advantage of the possibility of building back better, and many relevant dimensions related to a sustainable recovery are only weakly considered. Our methodology provides a step forward toward supporting governments in their efforts to identify better policies and investment projects and consequently put together packages of initiatives that advance on sustainability, green recovery or other long-term goals they may have. Social media summary Methodology to analyze COVID-19 recovery packages shows small impact on sustainability in five Latin American countries.
{"title":"Building back better in Latin America: examining the sustainability of COVID-19 recovery and development programs","authors":"R. O'Ryan, A. Villavicencio, Joaquín Gajardo, A. Ulloa, Cecilia Ibarra, M. Rojas","doi":"10.1017/sus.2023.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.7","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary The significant outlays by countries in the Global South to recover from the COVID-19 crisis could have been an opportunity to build back better, advancing both a green recovery and addressing pressing social problems, thus advancing sustainability. To examine if this was the case, in this paper we analyze the expected impacts of recovery initiatives in five Latin American countries. Our results show that these programs do not support the possibility of building back better, weakly impacting 12 dimensions related to sustainability. We also propose a methodology to improve how sustainability concerns can be included in future choice of projects. Technical summary It has been argued that the significant outlays by governments across the world required to recover from the COVID-19 crisis can be an opportunity to build back better, that is, advance toward greener societies. In the Global South, which suffered acute social, economic and environmental problems prior to this health crisis, recovery initiatives would be best suited to focus on sustainable economic recovery which – along with the environmental concerns of a green recovery – could address pressing local problems. To this end, we analyzed the expected impacts of recovery initiatives in five Latin American countries on each of 71 sustainability criteria. These criteria are based on the UN sustainable development goals and other relevant literature related to sustainable development. Using principal component analysis, criteria are grouped into 12 dimensions. Our results show that recovery programs examined do not take advantage of the possibility of building back better, and many relevant dimensions related to a sustainable recovery are only weakly considered. Our methodology provides a step forward toward supporting governments in their efforts to identify better policies and investment projects and consequently put together packages of initiatives that advance on sustainability, green recovery or other long-term goals they may have. Social media summary Methodology to analyze COVID-19 recovery packages shows small impact on sustainability in five Latin American countries.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2023-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45564182","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Milla Suomalainen, Johanna Hohenthal, Jarkko Pyysiäinen, Toni Ruuska, J. Rinkinen, Pasi Heikkurinen
Non-technical summary The industrial food system is widely considered to be unsustainable due to its undesired climate and health effects. One proposed alternative to these problems is a more local system of food provisioning. This means involving individuals, households, and communities in growing and acquiring edibles, like vegetables and other food stuff. This study based on a literature review found that food self-provisioning practitioners are mainly driven by health concerns and less by reasoning linked to the environment, like climate change adaptation and mitigation. We propose that the potential of food self-provisioning is underutilised in developing the sustainability of food systems. Technical summary In this article, we review and analyse the literature and concept of ‘food self-provisioning’ in order to understand its potential as a response to contemporary challenges. The focus of the study is on investigating the meanings related to environmental problems, particularly climate change, and issues of health. Firstly, we show how food self-provisioning is conceptualised vis-à-vis health and the environment; and secondly, what the (potential) implications of food self-provisioning to interlinked human and non-human health and beyond are. Based on the conducted literature review (n = 44), meanings of food self-provisioning are found to connect primarily to issues of human health and only secondarily to environmental questions, and even more marginally to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Our analysis cuts across the scales of households, communities, cities, and regions, including their diverse geographies, and hereby also comments on the questions of multilevel organising of self-provisioning, and what the notion of ‘self’ implies in this context. Social media summary The potential of food self-provisioning is underutilised in developing the sustainability of food systems.
{"title":"Food self-provisioning: a review of health and climate implications","authors":"Milla Suomalainen, Johanna Hohenthal, Jarkko Pyysiäinen, Toni Ruuska, J. Rinkinen, Pasi Heikkurinen","doi":"10.1017/sus.2023.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.6","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary The industrial food system is widely considered to be unsustainable due to its undesired climate and health effects. One proposed alternative to these problems is a more local system of food provisioning. This means involving individuals, households, and communities in growing and acquiring edibles, like vegetables and other food stuff. This study based on a literature review found that food self-provisioning practitioners are mainly driven by health concerns and less by reasoning linked to the environment, like climate change adaptation and mitigation. We propose that the potential of food self-provisioning is underutilised in developing the sustainability of food systems. Technical summary In this article, we review and analyse the literature and concept of ‘food self-provisioning’ in order to understand its potential as a response to contemporary challenges. The focus of the study is on investigating the meanings related to environmental problems, particularly climate change, and issues of health. Firstly, we show how food self-provisioning is conceptualised vis-à-vis health and the environment; and secondly, what the (potential) implications of food self-provisioning to interlinked human and non-human health and beyond are. Based on the conducted literature review (n = 44), meanings of food self-provisioning are found to connect primarily to issues of human health and only secondarily to environmental questions, and even more marginally to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Our analysis cuts across the scales of households, communities, cities, and regions, including their diverse geographies, and hereby also comments on the questions of multilevel organising of self-provisioning, and what the notion of ‘self’ implies in this context. Social media summary The potential of food self-provisioning is underutilised in developing the sustainability of food systems.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45891583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Murray W Scown, Robin K Craig, Craig R Allen, Lance Gunderson, David G Angeler, Jorge H Garcia, Ahjond Garmestani
Non-technical summary: The United Nations' sustainable development goals (SDGs) articulate societal aspirations for people and our planet. Many scientists have criticised the SDGs and some have suggested that a better understanding of the complex interactions between society and the environment should underpin the next global development agenda. We further this discussion through the theory of social-ecological resilience, which emphasises the ability of systems to absorb, adapt, and transform in the face of change. We determine the strengths of the current SDGs, which should form a basis for the next agenda, and identify key gaps that should be filled.
Technical summary: The United Nations' sustainable development goals (SDGs) are past their halfway point and the next global development agenda will soon need to be developed. While laudable, the SDGs have received strong criticism from many, and scholars have proposed that adopting complex adaptive or social-ecological system approaches would increase the effectiveness of the agenda. Here we dive deeper into these discussions to explore how the theory of social-ecological resilience could serve as a strong foundation for the next global sustainable development agenda. We identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current SDGs by determining which of the 169 targets address each of 43 factors affecting social-ecological resilience that we have compiled from the literature. The SDGs with the strongest connections to social-ecological resilience are the environment-focus goals (SDGs 2, 6, 13, 14, 15), which are also the goals consistently under-prioritised in the implementation of the current agenda. In terms of the 43 factors affecting social-ecological resilience, the SDG strengths lie in their communication, inclusive decision making, financial support, regulatory incentives, economic diversity, and transparency in governance and law. On the contrary, ecological factors of resilience are seriously lacking in the SDGs, particularly with regards to scale, cross-scale interactions, and non-stationarity.
Social media summary: The post-2030 agenda should build on strengths of SDGs 2, 6, 13, 14, 15, and fill gaps in scale, variability, and feedbacks.
{"title":"Towards a global sustainable development agenda built on social-ecological resilience.","authors":"Murray W Scown, Robin K Craig, Craig R Allen, Lance Gunderson, David G Angeler, Jorge H Garcia, Ahjond Garmestani","doi":"10.1017/sus.2023.8","DOIUrl":"10.1017/sus.2023.8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Non-technical summary: </strong>The United Nations' sustainable development goals (SDGs) articulate societal aspirations for people and our planet. Many scientists have criticised the SDGs and some have suggested that a better understanding of the complex interactions between society and the environment should underpin the next global development agenda. We further this discussion through the theory of social-ecological resilience, which emphasises the ability of systems to absorb, adapt, and transform in the face of change. We determine the strengths of the current SDGs, which should form a basis for the next agenda, and identify key gaps that should be filled.</p><p><strong>Technical summary: </strong>The United Nations' sustainable development goals (SDGs) are past their halfway point and the next global development agenda will soon need to be developed. While laudable, the SDGs have received strong criticism from many, and scholars have proposed that adopting complex adaptive or social-ecological system approaches would increase the effectiveness of the agenda. Here we dive deeper into these discussions to explore how the theory of social-ecological resilience could serve as a strong foundation for the next global sustainable development agenda. We identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current SDGs by determining which of the 169 targets address each of 43 factors affecting social-ecological resilience that we have compiled from the literature. The SDGs with the strongest connections to social-ecological resilience are the environment-focus goals (SDGs 2, 6, 13, 14, 15), which are also the goals consistently under-prioritised in the implementation of the current agenda. In terms of the 43 factors affecting social-ecological resilience, the SDG strengths lie in their communication, inclusive decision making, financial support, regulatory incentives, economic diversity, and transparency in governance and law. On the contrary, ecological factors of resilience are seriously lacking in the SDGs, particularly with regards to scale, cross-scale interactions, and non-stationarity.</p><p><strong>Social media summary: </strong>The post-2030 agenda should build on strengths of SDGs 2, 6, 13, 14, 15, and fill gaps in scale, variability, and feedbacks.</p>","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10489559/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10605699","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Non-technical summary Environmental threats to shelter, livelihoods, and food security are often considered push factors for intra-African human migration. Research in this field is often fragmented into a myriad of case studies on specific subregions or events, thus preventing a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. This paper examines environmental drivers reported in the literature as push factors for human displacement across 32 sub-Saharan African countries between 1990 and 2021. Extensive consultation of past studies and reports with analytical methods shows that environmental migration is complex and influenced by multiple direct and indirect factors. Non-environmental drivers compound the effects of environmental change. Technical summary Intra-African environmental migration is a bleak reality. Warming trends, aridification, and the intensification of extreme climate events, combined with underlying non-environmental drivers, may set millions of people on the move. Despite previous studies and meta-analyses on environmental migration within sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), conclusive empirical evidence of the relationship between environmental change and migration is still missing. Here we draw on 87 case studies published in the scholarly literature (from fields ranging from the environmental sciences to development economics and migration research) or documented by research databases, reports, and international disaster datasets to develop a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between environmental changes and migration across SSA. A combination of quantitative, Qualitative Comparative Analyses (QCA), and statistical correlation methods are used to analyze the metadata and investigate the complex web of environmental drivers of environmental migration in SSA while highlighting subregional differences in the predominant environmental forcing. We develop a new conceptual framework for investigating the cascading flow of interdependences among environmental change drivers of human displacement while reconstructing the main migration patterns across SSA. We also present new insights into the way non-environmental factors are exposing communities in SSA to high vulnerability and reduced resilience to environmental change. Social media summary Human displacement in sub-Saharan Africa is often associated with the effects of climate change and environmental degradation.
{"title":"Environmental drivers of human migration in Sub-Saharan Africa","authors":"Sinafekesh Girma Wolde, P. D’Odorico, M. Rulli","doi":"10.1017/sus.2023.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.5","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Environmental threats to shelter, livelihoods, and food security are often considered push factors for intra-African human migration. Research in this field is often fragmented into a myriad of case studies on specific subregions or events, thus preventing a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. This paper examines environmental drivers reported in the literature as push factors for human displacement across 32 sub-Saharan African countries between 1990 and 2021. Extensive consultation of past studies and reports with analytical methods shows that environmental migration is complex and influenced by multiple direct and indirect factors. Non-environmental drivers compound the effects of environmental change. Technical summary Intra-African environmental migration is a bleak reality. Warming trends, aridification, and the intensification of extreme climate events, combined with underlying non-environmental drivers, may set millions of people on the move. Despite previous studies and meta-analyses on environmental migration within sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), conclusive empirical evidence of the relationship between environmental change and migration is still missing. Here we draw on 87 case studies published in the scholarly literature (from fields ranging from the environmental sciences to development economics and migration research) or documented by research databases, reports, and international disaster datasets to develop a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between environmental changes and migration across SSA. A combination of quantitative, Qualitative Comparative Analyses (QCA), and statistical correlation methods are used to analyze the metadata and investigate the complex web of environmental drivers of environmental migration in SSA while highlighting subregional differences in the predominant environmental forcing. We develop a new conceptual framework for investigating the cascading flow of interdependences among environmental change drivers of human displacement while reconstructing the main migration patterns across SSA. We also present new insights into the way non-environmental factors are exposing communities in SSA to high vulnerability and reduced resilience to environmental change. Social media summary Human displacement in sub-Saharan Africa is often associated with the effects of climate change and environmental degradation.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2023-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44716571","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Arunima Malik, Guillaume Lafortune, Salma Dahir, Zachary A. Wendling, C. Kroll, S. Carter, Mengyu Li, M. Lenzen
Non-technical summary Globalisation has narrowed the gap between producers and consumers. Nations are increasingly relying on commodities produced outside of their borders for satisfying their consumption. This is particularly the case for the European Union (EU). This study assesses spillover effects, i.e. impacts taking place outside of the EU borders, resulting from the EU's demand for food products, in terms of environmental and social indicators. Technical summary Human demand for agri-food products contributes to environmental degradation in the form of land-use impacts and emissions into the atmosphere. Development and implementation of suitable policy instruments to mitigate these impacts requires robust and timely statistics at sectoral, regional and global levels. In this study, we aim to assess the environmental and social impacts embodied in European Union's (EU's) demand for agri-food products. To this end, we select a range of indicators: emissions (carbon dioxide, particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide), land use, employment and income. We trace these environmental and social impacts across EU's trading partners to identify specific sectors and regions as hotspots of international spillovers embodied in EU's food supply chains and find that these hotspots are wide-ranging in all continents. EU's food demand is responsible for 5% of the EU's total CO2 consumption-based footprint, 9% of the total NOX footprint, 16% of the total PM footprint, 6% of the total SO2 footprint, 46% of the total land-use footprint, 13% of the total employment footprint and 5% of the total income footprint. Our results serve to inform future reforms in the EU for aligning policies and strategies with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement. Social media summary Significant environmental and social spillover effects embodied in the EU's food supply chains.
{"title":"Global environmental and social spillover effects of EU's food trade","authors":"Arunima Malik, Guillaume Lafortune, Salma Dahir, Zachary A. Wendling, C. Kroll, S. Carter, Mengyu Li, M. Lenzen","doi":"10.1017/sus.2023.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.4","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Globalisation has narrowed the gap between producers and consumers. Nations are increasingly relying on commodities produced outside of their borders for satisfying their consumption. This is particularly the case for the European Union (EU). This study assesses spillover effects, i.e. impacts taking place outside of the EU borders, resulting from the EU's demand for food products, in terms of environmental and social indicators. Technical summary Human demand for agri-food products contributes to environmental degradation in the form of land-use impacts and emissions into the atmosphere. Development and implementation of suitable policy instruments to mitigate these impacts requires robust and timely statistics at sectoral, regional and global levels. In this study, we aim to assess the environmental and social impacts embodied in European Union's (EU's) demand for agri-food products. To this end, we select a range of indicators: emissions (carbon dioxide, particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide), land use, employment and income. We trace these environmental and social impacts across EU's trading partners to identify specific sectors and regions as hotspots of international spillovers embodied in EU's food supply chains and find that these hotspots are wide-ranging in all continents. EU's food demand is responsible for 5% of the EU's total CO2 consumption-based footprint, 9% of the total NOX footprint, 16% of the total PM footprint, 6% of the total SO2 footprint, 46% of the total land-use footprint, 13% of the total employment footprint and 5% of the total income footprint. Our results serve to inform future reforms in the EU for aligning policies and strategies with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement. Social media summary Significant environmental and social spillover effects embodied in the EU's food supply chains.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45985612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Non-technical summary When developing and deploying negative emissions technologies (NETs), little attention has been paid to where. On the one hand, one might develop NETs where they are likely to contribute most to global mitigation targets, contributing to a global climate solution. On the other hand, one might develop NETs where they can help support development on a regional basis, justified by regional demands. I defend these arguments and suggest that they reflect the values of efficiency and responding to need, respectively. To the extent that these values conflict, they introduce what I call the Need-Efficiency Trade-off Effect (‘NET Effect’). Technical summary Unlike other geoengineering methods, the effectiveness of negative emissions technologies (NETs) tends to be sensitive to regional siting. This paper argues that this point raises morally and legally important implications by identifying a trade-off between ‘efficiency’ and ‘need’. First, it introduces two arguments justifying NETs: one focused on contributions to global mitigation and the other focused on contributions to regional development. Second, reflecting the two arguments, the paper discusses the moral values of efficiency and need, respectively. For instance, if the strategy is to try to use NETs to maximize expected mitigation contributions to reflect efficiency, then deployment should occur in regions with the best prospects for success (e.g. Western countries). However, if the strategy is to try to use NETs to improve the chances of simultaneous development and mitigation to respond to need, then deployment should occur in regions with limited development and expected growth of demand for NETs (e.g. Asian countries). When these values conflict, I call that a Need-Efficiency Trade-off Effect (‘NET Effect’). The paper concludes by considering the NET Effect in the context of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage as well as direct air carbon capture and storage. Social media summary Should negative emissions technologies be deployed in Western countries for most climate action or Asian where needed for development?
{"title":"The NET effect: negative emissions technologies and the need–efficiency trade-off","authors":"Kian Mintz‐Woo","doi":"10.1017/sus.2023.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.3","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary When developing and deploying negative emissions technologies (NETs), little attention has been paid to where. On the one hand, one might develop NETs where they are likely to contribute most to global mitigation targets, contributing to a global climate solution. On the other hand, one might develop NETs where they can help support development on a regional basis, justified by regional demands. I defend these arguments and suggest that they reflect the values of efficiency and responding to need, respectively. To the extent that these values conflict, they introduce what I call the Need-Efficiency Trade-off Effect (‘NET Effect’). Technical summary Unlike other geoengineering methods, the effectiveness of negative emissions technologies (NETs) tends to be sensitive to regional siting. This paper argues that this point raises morally and legally important implications by identifying a trade-off between ‘efficiency’ and ‘need’. First, it introduces two arguments justifying NETs: one focused on contributions to global mitigation and the other focused on contributions to regional development. Second, reflecting the two arguments, the paper discusses the moral values of efficiency and need, respectively. For instance, if the strategy is to try to use NETs to maximize expected mitigation contributions to reflect efficiency, then deployment should occur in regions with the best prospects for success (e.g. Western countries). However, if the strategy is to try to use NETs to improve the chances of simultaneous development and mitigation to respond to need, then deployment should occur in regions with limited development and expected growth of demand for NETs (e.g. Asian countries). When these values conflict, I call that a Need-Efficiency Trade-off Effect (‘NET Effect’). The paper concludes by considering the NET Effect in the context of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage as well as direct air carbon capture and storage. Social media summary Should negative emissions technologies be deployed in Western countries for most climate action or Asian where needed for development?","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47545813","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Non-technical summary Cities in the distant past – as documented by archaeologists and historians – provide an extensive record of urban successes and failures, yet this information has had little impact on the field of sustainability science. I explore two reasons for this situation. First, these scholars have often failed to synthesize their data scientifically, and, second, they have not approached the transfer of past knowledge to present research in a rigorous manner. I organize discussion of these issues around three arguments for the present value of past cities: the urban trajectory argument, the sample size argument, and the laboratory argument. Technical summary I explore the different ways historical and archaeological data can be deployed to contribute to research on urban sustainability science, emphasizing issues of argumentation and epistemology. I organize the discussion around three types of argument. The urban trajectory argument exploits the long time series of early cities and urban regions to examine change at a long time scale. The sample size argument views the role of early cities as adding to the known sample of settlements to increase understanding of urban similarities and differences. The laboratory argument uses data from past cities to explicitly test models derived from contemporary cities. Each argument is examined for three contrasting epistemological approaches: heuristic analogs, case studies, and quantitative studies. These approaches form a continuum leading from lesser to greater scientific rigor and from qualitative to quantitative frameworks. Much past-to-present argumentation requires inductive logic, also called reasoning by analogy. Sustainability scientists have confused this general form of argument with its weakest version, known as heuristic analogs. I stress ways to improve methods of argumentation, particularly by moving research along the continuum from weaker to stronger arguments. Social media summary Better methods of argument allow the past record of urban success and failure to contribute to urban sustainability science.
{"title":"How can research on past urban adaptations be made useful for sustainability science?","authors":"Michael E. Smith","doi":"10.1017/sus.2023.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.2","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Cities in the distant past – as documented by archaeologists and historians – provide an extensive record of urban successes and failures, yet this information has had little impact on the field of sustainability science. I explore two reasons for this situation. First, these scholars have often failed to synthesize their data scientifically, and, second, they have not approached the transfer of past knowledge to present research in a rigorous manner. I organize discussion of these issues around three arguments for the present value of past cities: the urban trajectory argument, the sample size argument, and the laboratory argument. Technical summary I explore the different ways historical and archaeological data can be deployed to contribute to research on urban sustainability science, emphasizing issues of argumentation and epistemology. I organize the discussion around three types of argument. The urban trajectory argument exploits the long time series of early cities and urban regions to examine change at a long time scale. The sample size argument views the role of early cities as adding to the known sample of settlements to increase understanding of urban similarities and differences. The laboratory argument uses data from past cities to explicitly test models derived from contemporary cities. Each argument is examined for three contrasting epistemological approaches: heuristic analogs, case studies, and quantitative studies. These approaches form a continuum leading from lesser to greater scientific rigor and from qualitative to quantitative frameworks. Much past-to-present argumentation requires inductive logic, also called reasoning by analogy. Sustainability scientists have confused this general form of argument with its weakest version, known as heuristic analogs. I stress ways to improve methods of argumentation, particularly by moving research along the continuum from weaker to stronger arguments. Social media summary Better methods of argument allow the past record of urban success and failure to contribute to urban sustainability science.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45131623","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：