Pub Date : 2023-11-13DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-113509
Arun Agrawal, James Erbaugh, Nabin Pradhan
Commons—resources used or governed by groups of heterogeneous users through agreed-upon institutional arrangements—are the subject of one of the more successful research programs in the social-environmental sciences. This review assesses research on the commons to accomplish three tasks. First, it surveys the theoretical, substantive, and methods-focused achievements of the field, illustrating how commons research has also influenced natural resource policy making. Second, it examines the changing trajectories of commons research, emphasizing the growing interest of commons researchers in new methods and the application of insights to new social contexts. Third, the review suggests that research on the commons can find continuing relevance by addressing contemporary and future social-environmental challenges. It highlights three directions in particular: ( a) strengthening the focus on issues of power and equity, ( b) applying insights about effective commons governance to collaborative attempts to craft commons in new societal spaces, and ( c) advancing an emerging emphasis on causal analysis and taking advantage of novel streams of large-scale public datasets.
{"title":"The Commons","authors":"Arun Agrawal, James Erbaugh, Nabin Pradhan","doi":"10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-113509","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-113509","url":null,"abstract":"Commons—resources used or governed by groups of heterogeneous users through agreed-upon institutional arrangements—are the subject of one of the more successful research programs in the social-environmental sciences. This review assesses research on the commons to accomplish three tasks. First, it surveys the theoretical, substantive, and methods-focused achievements of the field, illustrating how commons research has also influenced natural resource policy making. Second, it examines the changing trajectories of commons research, emphasizing the growing interest of commons researchers in new methods and the application of insights to new social contexts. Third, the review suggests that research on the commons can find continuing relevance by addressing contemporary and future social-environmental challenges. It highlights three directions in particular: ( a) strengthening the focus on issues of power and equity, ( b) applying insights about effective commons governance to collaborative attempts to craft commons in new societal spaces, and ( c) advancing an emerging emphasis on causal analysis and taking advantage of novel streams of large-scale public datasets.","PeriodicalId":7982,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Environment and Resources","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134992862","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-13DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-112420-013640
James E.M. Watson, Erle C. Ellis, Rajeev Pillay, Brooke A. Williams, Oscar Venter
As anthropogenic transformation of Earth's ecology accelerates, and its impacts on the sustainability of humanity and the rest of nature become more obvious, geographers and other researchers are leveraging an abundance of spatial data to map how industrialization is transforming the biosphere. This review examines the methodologies used to create such maps and how they have enhanced our understanding of how societies can abate biodiversity loss, mitigate climate change, and achieve global sustainability goals. Although there have been great advances over the past two decades in mapping industrial transformations of ecology across the planet, the field is still in its infancy. We outline future research directions to better understand anthropogenic transformation of the biosphere and the utility of integrating global maps of socioeconomic, ecological, biodiversity, and climate data to explore and inform potential pathways of human-driven social-ecological change.
{"title":"Mapping Industrial Influences on Earth's Ecology","authors":"James E.M. Watson, Erle C. Ellis, Rajeev Pillay, Brooke A. Williams, Oscar Venter","doi":"10.1146/annurev-environ-112420-013640","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112420-013640","url":null,"abstract":"As anthropogenic transformation of Earth's ecology accelerates, and its impacts on the sustainability of humanity and the rest of nature become more obvious, geographers and other researchers are leveraging an abundance of spatial data to map how industrialization is transforming the biosphere. This review examines the methodologies used to create such maps and how they have enhanced our understanding of how societies can abate biodiversity loss, mitigate climate change, and achieve global sustainability goals. Although there have been great advances over the past two decades in mapping industrial transformations of ecology across the planet, the field is still in its infancy. We outline future research directions to better understand anthropogenic transformation of the biosphere and the utility of integrating global maps of socioeconomic, ecological, biodiversity, and climate data to explore and inform potential pathways of human-driven social-ecological change.","PeriodicalId":7982,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Environment and Resources","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136281914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-13DOI: 10.1146/annurev-eg-48-101623-100001
Ashok Gadgil, Thomas P. Tomich
Despite three decades of political efforts and a wealth of research on the causes and catastrophic impacts of climate change, global carbon dioxide emissions have continued to rise and are 60% higher today than they were in 1990. Exploring this rise ...Read More
{"title":"Who Should Read This Journal?","authors":"Ashok Gadgil, Thomas P. Tomich","doi":"10.1146/annurev-eg-48-101623-100001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-eg-48-101623-100001","url":null,"abstract":"Despite three decades of political efforts and a wealth of research on the causes and catastrophic impacts of climate change, global carbon dioxide emissions have continued to rise and are 60% higher today than they were in 1990. Exploring this rise ...Read More","PeriodicalId":7982,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Environment and Resources","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136282080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-13DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-081348
Yin Zhang, Paige West, Lerato Thakholi, Kulbhushansingh Suryawanshi, Miriam Supuma, Dakota Straub, Samantha S. Sithole, Roshan Sharma, Judith Schleicher, Ben Ruli, David Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Mattias Borg Rasmussen, Victoria C. Ramenzoni, Siyu Qin, Deborah Delgado Pugley, Rachel Palfrey, Johan Oldekop, Emmanuel O. Nuesiri, Van Hai Thi Nguyen, Nouhou Ndam, Catherine Mungai, Sarah Milne, Mathew Bukhi Mabele, Sadie Lucitante, Hugo Lucitante, Jonathan Liljeblad, Wilhelm Andrew Kiwango, Alfred Kik, Nikoleta Jones, Melissa Johnson, Christopher Jarrett, Rachel Sapery James, George Holmes, Lydia N. Gibson, Arash Ghoddousi, Jonas Geldmann, Maria Fernanda Gebara, Thera Edwards, Wolfram H. Dressler, Leo R. Douglas, Panayiotis G. Dimitrakopoulos, Veronica Davidov, Eveline M.F.W. Compaoré-Sawadogo, Yolanda Ariadne Collins, Michael Cepek, Paul Berne Burow, Dan Brockington, Michael Philippe Bessike Balinga, Beau J. Austin, Rini Astuti, Christine Ampumuza, Frank Kwaku Agyei
Increased conservation action to protect more habitat and species is fueling a vigorous debate about the relative effectiveness of different sorts of protected areas. Here we review the literature that compares the effectiveness of protected areas managed by states and areas managed by Indigenous peoples and/or local communities. We argue that these can be hard comparisons to make. Robust comparative case studies are rare, and the epistemic communities producing them are fractured by language, discipline, and geography. Furthermore the distinction between these different forms of protection on the ground can be blurred. We also have to be careful about the value of this sort of comparison as the consequences of different forms of conservation for people and nonhuman nature are messy and diverse. Measures of effectiveness, moreover, focus on specific dimensions of conservation performance, which can omit other important dimensions. With these caveats, we report on findings observed by multiple study groups focusing on different regions and issues whose reports have been compiled into this article. There is a tendency in the data for community-based or co-managed governance arrangements to produce beneficial outcomes for people and nature. These arrangements are often accompanied by struggles between rural groups and powerful states. Findings are highly context specific and global generalizations have limited value.
{"title":"Governance and Conservation Effectiveness in Protected Areas and Indigenous and Locally Managed Areas","authors":"Yin Zhang, Paige West, Lerato Thakholi, Kulbhushansingh Suryawanshi, Miriam Supuma, Dakota Straub, Samantha S. Sithole, Roshan Sharma, Judith Schleicher, Ben Ruli, David Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Mattias Borg Rasmussen, Victoria C. Ramenzoni, Siyu Qin, Deborah Delgado Pugley, Rachel Palfrey, Johan Oldekop, Emmanuel O. Nuesiri, Van Hai Thi Nguyen, Nouhou Ndam, Catherine Mungai, Sarah Milne, Mathew Bukhi Mabele, Sadie Lucitante, Hugo Lucitante, Jonathan Liljeblad, Wilhelm Andrew Kiwango, Alfred Kik, Nikoleta Jones, Melissa Johnson, Christopher Jarrett, Rachel Sapery James, George Holmes, Lydia N. Gibson, Arash Ghoddousi, Jonas Geldmann, Maria Fernanda Gebara, Thera Edwards, Wolfram H. Dressler, Leo R. Douglas, Panayiotis G. Dimitrakopoulos, Veronica Davidov, Eveline M.F.W. Compaoré-Sawadogo, Yolanda Ariadne Collins, Michael Cepek, Paul Berne Burow, Dan Brockington, Michael Philippe Bessike Balinga, Beau J. Austin, Rini Astuti, Christine Ampumuza, Frank Kwaku Agyei","doi":"10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-081348","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-081348","url":null,"abstract":"Increased conservation action to protect more habitat and species is fueling a vigorous debate about the relative effectiveness of different sorts of protected areas. Here we review the literature that compares the effectiveness of protected areas managed by states and areas managed by Indigenous peoples and/or local communities. We argue that these can be hard comparisons to make. Robust comparative case studies are rare, and the epistemic communities producing them are fractured by language, discipline, and geography. Furthermore the distinction between these different forms of protection on the ground can be blurred. We also have to be careful about the value of this sort of comparison as the consequences of different forms of conservation for people and nonhuman nature are messy and diverse. Measures of effectiveness, moreover, focus on specific dimensions of conservation performance, which can omit other important dimensions. With these caveats, we report on findings observed by multiple study groups focusing on different regions and issues whose reports have been compiled into this article. There is a tendency in the data for community-based or co-managed governance arrangements to produce beneficial outcomes for people and nature. These arrangements are often accompanied by struggles between rural groups and powerful states. Findings are highly context specific and global generalizations have limited value.","PeriodicalId":7982,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Environment and Resources","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136282091","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-13DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-103821
Janna Hoppe, Ben Hinder, Ryan Rafaty, Anthony Patt, Michael Grubb
After tentative efforts during the 1990s, the past two decades have seen a rapid increase in the number of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mitigation policies, initially in a few frontrunner countries and more recently spreading globally. Over the same period, GHG emissions have continued to rise, but the rate of growth has recently slowed. Are mitigation policies having an effect? To explore this question, we review and synthesize the empirical literature on the impact of mitigation policies on three key outcomes: GHG emissions, proximate emission drivers like energy intensity and land use, and low-carbon technologies. Our key contribution to the available literature lies in establishing an empirically based track record of climate action, focusing on methodologically sound ex post studies. We find that mitigation policies have had a discernible impact on emissions and multiple emission drivers. Most notably, they have led to reductions in energy use, declines in deforestation rates, as well as cost reductions and capacity expansions of low-carbon technologies in many instances. Furthermore, implemented policies to date are likely to have reduced global emissions by several billion tons of CO 2 eq per year compared to a world without mitigation policies. In the light of current ambitions on climate action falling short of what is required to limit global warming to the Paris temperature goals, we conclude that there is ample evidence of policy instruments with demonstrable impacts, but that efforts need to be hugely strengthened and expanded. Also, far more attention is required to policy monitoring, evaluation, and learning so as to strengthen the basis for future policy and the attribution of its impacts.
{"title":"Three Decades of Climate Mitigation Policy: What Has It Delivered?","authors":"Janna Hoppe, Ben Hinder, Ryan Rafaty, Anthony Patt, Michael Grubb","doi":"10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-103821","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-103821","url":null,"abstract":"After tentative efforts during the 1990s, the past two decades have seen a rapid increase in the number of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mitigation policies, initially in a few frontrunner countries and more recently spreading globally. Over the same period, GHG emissions have continued to rise, but the rate of growth has recently slowed. Are mitigation policies having an effect? To explore this question, we review and synthesize the empirical literature on the impact of mitigation policies on three key outcomes: GHG emissions, proximate emission drivers like energy intensity and land use, and low-carbon technologies. Our key contribution to the available literature lies in establishing an empirically based track record of climate action, focusing on methodologically sound ex post studies. We find that mitigation policies have had a discernible impact on emissions and multiple emission drivers. Most notably, they have led to reductions in energy use, declines in deforestation rates, as well as cost reductions and capacity expansions of low-carbon technologies in many instances. Furthermore, implemented policies to date are likely to have reduced global emissions by several billion tons of CO 2 eq per year compared to a world without mitigation policies. In the light of current ambitions on climate action falling short of what is required to limit global warming to the Paris temperature goals, we conclude that there is ample evidence of policy instruments with demonstrable impacts, but that efforts need to be hugely strengthened and expanded. Also, far more attention is required to policy monitoring, evaluation, and learning so as to strengthen the basis for future policy and the attribution of its impacts.","PeriodicalId":7982,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Environment and Resources","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134992872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-13DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-064435
Sulgiye Park, Rodney C. Ewing
The nuclear waste management and disposal program in the United States for highly radioactive waste (spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste) has thus far been unsuccessful despite an effort that spans 40 years and the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars. Yet, today, there is considerable interest in and promotion of advanced reactor technologies, such as small modular reactors that will expand spent fuel inventories that may very well remain at the site where they are generated, awaiting permanent, geologic disposal. We examine critical elements of the US legal and regulatory framework that have impeded the success of the US program. We make recommendations on steps that are required for a successful nuclear waste program, particularly considering the development of advanced nuclear reactors and their fuel cycles.
{"title":"US Legal and Regulatory Framework for Nuclear Waste from Present and Future Reactors and Their Fuel Cycles","authors":"Sulgiye Park, Rodney C. Ewing","doi":"10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-064435","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-064435","url":null,"abstract":"The nuclear waste management and disposal program in the United States for highly radioactive waste (spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste) has thus far been unsuccessful despite an effort that spans 40 years and the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars. Yet, today, there is considerable interest in and promotion of advanced reactor technologies, such as small modular reactors that will expand spent fuel inventories that may very well remain at the site where they are generated, awaiting permanent, geologic disposal. We examine critical elements of the US legal and regulatory framework that have impeded the success of the US program. We make recommendations on steps that are required for a successful nuclear waste program, particularly considering the development of advanced nuclear reactors and their fuel cycles.","PeriodicalId":7982,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Environment and Resources","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134993608","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-13DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-102921
Alessio Mastrucci, Leila Niamir, Benigna Boza-Kiss, Nuno Bento, Dominik Wiedenhofer, Jan Streeck, Shonali Pachauri, Charlie Wilson, Souran Chatterjee, Felix Creutzig, Srihari Dukkipati, Wei Feng, Arnulf Grubler, Joni Jupesta, Poornima Kumar, Giacomo Marangoni, Yamina Saheb, Yoshiyuki Shimoda, Bianka Shoai-Tehrani, Yohei Yamaguchi, Bas van Ruijven
Buildings are key in supporting human activities and well-being by providing shelter and other important services to their users. Buildings are, however, also responsible for major energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during their life cycle. Improving the quality of services provided by buildings while reaching low energy demand (LED) levels is crucial for climate and sustainability targets. Building sector models have become essential tools for decision support on strategies to reduce energy demand and GHG emissions. Yet current models have significant limitations in their ability to assess the transformations required for LED. We review building sector models ranging from the subnational to the global scale to identify best practices and critical gaps in representing transformations toward LED futures. We focus on three key dimensions of intervention (socio-behavioral, infrastructural, and technological), three megatrends (digitalization, sharing economy, and circular economy), and decent living standards. This review recommends the model developments needed to better assess LED transformations in buildings and support decision-making toward sustainability targets.
{"title":"Modeling Low Energy Demand Futures for Buildings: Current State and Research Needs","authors":"Alessio Mastrucci, Leila Niamir, Benigna Boza-Kiss, Nuno Bento, Dominik Wiedenhofer, Jan Streeck, Shonali Pachauri, Charlie Wilson, Souran Chatterjee, Felix Creutzig, Srihari Dukkipati, Wei Feng, Arnulf Grubler, Joni Jupesta, Poornima Kumar, Giacomo Marangoni, Yamina Saheb, Yoshiyuki Shimoda, Bianka Shoai-Tehrani, Yohei Yamaguchi, Bas van Ruijven","doi":"10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-102921","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-102921","url":null,"abstract":"Buildings are key in supporting human activities and well-being by providing shelter and other important services to their users. Buildings are, however, also responsible for major energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during their life cycle. Improving the quality of services provided by buildings while reaching low energy demand (LED) levels is crucial for climate and sustainability targets. Building sector models have become essential tools for decision support on strategies to reduce energy demand and GHG emissions. Yet current models have significant limitations in their ability to assess the transformations required for LED. We review building sector models ranging from the subnational to the global scale to identify best practices and critical gaps in representing transformations toward LED futures. We focus on three key dimensions of intervention (socio-behavioral, infrastructural, and technological), three megatrends (digitalization, sharing economy, and circular economy), and decent living standards. This review recommends the model developments needed to better assess LED transformations in buildings and support decision-making toward sustainability targets.","PeriodicalId":7982,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Environment and Resources","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136282225","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-13DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-114023
L. Hannah, G.F. Midgley
Global agreement on 30×30 means an unprecedented last push to define how much nature will be left on the planet. At the same time that space for nature is being defined, climate change will be moving nature around. Species are now on the move to track climate change both on land and in the oceans, a process that is accelerating under dramatic new extreme events. This is an opportune time to review conservation recommendations made early in the millennium, to see how many have been taken on board over the past 20 years, and how much is left to be done to adapt to climate change as conservation pushes toward 30×30. The history of Climate Change–Integrated Conservation Strategies begins with two papers published by a group of prominent climate change biologists in 2002. The importance of including adaptation to climate change in conservation was underscored by the first estimates of extinction risk due to climate change in 2004. Subsequent literature has developed concepts such as velocity of climate change and assisted migration. Regional modeling of biodiversity change, expanding protected areas to facilitate species range movements, and managing productive landscapes to facilitate species movements are all now considered “business as usual” for conservation planning for climate change. Regional coordination of conservation efforts to ensure that species on the move are managed for climate change consistently across their range, on the other hand, is under-represented in literature and practice. Improving both theory and practice of regional coordination for climate change is an important priority for conservation now and in the future. Conservation for climate change has focused mostly on warming scenarios, but failure to act on climate change emissions reduction means that meeting Paris Agreement targets will almost certainly have to include both warming past those targets and subsequent cooling back to the target. Managing this double transition is a second critical point of emphasis for climate change biology as the world moves to 30×30.
{"title":"30×30 for Climate: The History and Future of Climate Change–Integrated Conservation Strategies","authors":"L. Hannah, G.F. Midgley","doi":"10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-114023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-114023","url":null,"abstract":"Global agreement on 30×30 means an unprecedented last push to define how much nature will be left on the planet. At the same time that space for nature is being defined, climate change will be moving nature around. Species are now on the move to track climate change both on land and in the oceans, a process that is accelerating under dramatic new extreme events. This is an opportune time to review conservation recommendations made early in the millennium, to see how many have been taken on board over the past 20 years, and how much is left to be done to adapt to climate change as conservation pushes toward 30×30. The history of Climate Change–Integrated Conservation Strategies begins with two papers published by a group of prominent climate change biologists in 2002. The importance of including adaptation to climate change in conservation was underscored by the first estimates of extinction risk due to climate change in 2004. Subsequent literature has developed concepts such as velocity of climate change and assisted migration. Regional modeling of biodiversity change, expanding protected areas to facilitate species range movements, and managing productive landscapes to facilitate species movements are all now considered “business as usual” for conservation planning for climate change. Regional coordination of conservation efforts to ensure that species on the move are managed for climate change consistently across their range, on the other hand, is under-represented in literature and practice. Improving both theory and practice of regional coordination for climate change is an important priority for conservation now and in the future. Conservation for climate change has focused mostly on warming scenarios, but failure to act on climate change emissions reduction means that meeting Paris Agreement targets will almost certainly have to include both warming past those targets and subsequent cooling back to the target. Managing this double transition is a second critical point of emphasis for climate change biology as the world moves to 30×30.","PeriodicalId":7982,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Environment and Resources","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134992695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-13DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-063931
Anu Ramaswami, Bhartendu Pandey, Qingchun Li, Kirti Das, Ajay Nagpure
Getting to net-zero-carbon cities while advancing well-being (W), health (H), social equity (E), and climate resilience (R) (referred to as the WHER outcomes) is critical for local and global sustainability. However, science is nascent on the linkages between zero-carbon pathways and WHER outcomes. This article presents a transboundary urban metabolism framework, rooted in seven key infrastructure and food provisioning systems, to connect urban decarbonization strategies with WHER outcomes. Applying the framework along with a literature review, we find the evidence for co-beneficial decarbonization to be strong for health; limited for well-being; uncertain for resilience; and requiring intentional design to advance equity, including distributional, procedural, and recognitional aspects. We describe the evidence base, identify key knowledge gaps, and delineate broad parameters of a new urban nexus science to enable zero-carbon urban transitions with WHER co-benefits. We highlight the need for fine-scale data encompassing all seven sectors across scales, along with multiple and multiscale climate risks, accompanied by next-generation multisector, multiscale, multioutcome nexus models.
{"title":"Toward Zero-Carbon Urban Transitions with Health, Climate Resilience, and Equity Co-Benefits: Assessing Nexus Linkages","authors":"Anu Ramaswami, Bhartendu Pandey, Qingchun Li, Kirti Das, Ajay Nagpure","doi":"10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-063931","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-063931","url":null,"abstract":"Getting to net-zero-carbon cities while advancing well-being (W), health (H), social equity (E), and climate resilience (R) (referred to as the WHER outcomes) is critical for local and global sustainability. However, science is nascent on the linkages between zero-carbon pathways and WHER outcomes. This article presents a transboundary urban metabolism framework, rooted in seven key infrastructure and food provisioning systems, to connect urban decarbonization strategies with WHER outcomes. Applying the framework along with a literature review, we find the evidence for co-beneficial decarbonization to be strong for health; limited for well-being; uncertain for resilience; and requiring intentional design to advance equity, including distributional, procedural, and recognitional aspects. We describe the evidence base, identify key knowledge gaps, and delineate broad parameters of a new urban nexus science to enable zero-carbon urban transitions with WHER co-benefits. We highlight the need for fine-scale data encompassing all seven sectors across scales, along with multiple and multiscale climate risks, accompanied by next-generation multisector, multiscale, multioutcome nexus models.","PeriodicalId":7982,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Environment and Resources","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136282543","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-13DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-112522-072642
I.E. Napper, R.C. Thompson
Plastics are persistent and pervasive throughout the environment and have now been reported from the deepest parts of the ocean to the tops of the highest and most remote mountains. There is a body of information on the sources, degradation, and transport of plastics as well as a variety of research investigating the ecotoxicological and wider ecological consequences of plastic ingestion and accumulation. Such knowledge has been obtained with developments in field and laboratory methods for plastic identification and then well-publicized in the media and wider public communications. However, although there has been a large focus on plastic pollution within the past decade, there is plenty that we do not yet know. Even within the past five years, sources of microplastics (1 μm–5 mm) to the environment have been confirmed that had not previously been considered, for example, road paints and tire wear particles. Initial research focused on plastic in the marine environment, but understanding on the accumulation and impacts in terrestrial and freshwater environments is growing. There is a substantial lack of basic science focused on the efficiency of solutions aimed at mitigating plastic pollution. This review highlights some recent (past five years) research on plastics in the environment, including investigations in accumulation, sources, distribution, impacts, solutions and provides directions for future work.
{"title":"Plastics and the Environment","authors":"I.E. Napper, R.C. Thompson","doi":"10.1146/annurev-environ-112522-072642","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112522-072642","url":null,"abstract":"Plastics are persistent and pervasive throughout the environment and have now been reported from the deepest parts of the ocean to the tops of the highest and most remote mountains. There is a body of information on the sources, degradation, and transport of plastics as well as a variety of research investigating the ecotoxicological and wider ecological consequences of plastic ingestion and accumulation. Such knowledge has been obtained with developments in field and laboratory methods for plastic identification and then well-publicized in the media and wider public communications. However, although there has been a large focus on plastic pollution within the past decade, there is plenty that we do not yet know. Even within the past five years, sources of microplastics (1 μm–5 mm) to the environment have been confirmed that had not previously been considered, for example, road paints and tire wear particles. Initial research focused on plastic in the marine environment, but understanding on the accumulation and impacts in terrestrial and freshwater environments is growing. There is a substantial lack of basic science focused on the efficiency of solutions aimed at mitigating plastic pollution. This review highlights some recent (past five years) research on plastics in the environment, including investigations in accumulation, sources, distribution, impacts, solutions and provides directions for future work.","PeriodicalId":7982,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Environment and Resources","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136281475","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","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：