New insights into assessing the carrying capacity of resources and the environment: The origin, development and prospects of the planetary boundaries framework

CHEN Xian-peng, FANG Kai, PENG Jian, LIU Ai-yuan

doi:10.31497/zrzyxb.20200302

2020 , Vol. 35 >Issue 3: 513 - 531

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31497/zrzyxb.20200302

Special Forum of "Ecological Restoration of Territorial Space"

New insights into assessing the carrying capacity of resources and the environment: The origin, development and prospects of the planetary boundaries framework

Expand

1. School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China;
2. Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China;
3. Library of Jimei University, Xiamen 361021, Fujian, China

Received date: 2019-02-15

Revised date: 2019-07-16

Online published: 2020-03-28

Fold

Abstract

Maintaining the magnitude and intensity of human activities within the carrying capacity of resources and the environment is the core of the sustainable development theory. Therefore, how to assess the carrying capacity in a scientific way receives top priority among sustainability development strategies. The Planetary Boundaries Framework (PBF) that takes into account the Earth system as a whole provides new insights into assessing the carrying capacity of resources and the environment. The PBF has attracted considerable attentions and discussions within the sustainability science since its first appearance in the literature. However, the opportunities and challenges facing the PBF remain largely unexplored by the scientific community. This paper aims to fill in this gap by elaborating on the theoretical basis of the PBF and its conceptual evolution, revisiting the development and applications of the framework at the national, provincial, urban and organizational scales, identifying the challenges that the framework is facing and the solutions, and comparing the framework with the traditional paradigm for assessing the carrying capacity of resources and the environment. As a combination of historical experiences and scientific studies based on the theory of stable states and catastrophe in complex systems, the PBF serves as a useful supplement to the present assessments of carrying capacity. Primarily the downscaling of PBF to sub-global scales can be achieved through either top-down allocation or bottom-up integration. A systematic understanding of the linkages between these two pathways and their potential synergies would be of crucial significance to the development of the framework. However, we observe that there is a lack of clarity and transparency in the PBF regarding the scaling properties and interactions between various biophysical processes, leading to arguments over variables selection and boundaries setting. Besides, methodological challenges appear when we integrate PBF with tools for environmental impact assessment, such as environmental footprints and life cycle assessment, and extending the framework to socioeconomic dimensions. Therefore, there is a need for a deeper understanding of the PBF with respect to its theoretical basis, technical approaches and practical applications, so as to enhance the policy-guiding value of the framework as an approach to address the world's major public issues such as achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Key words： planetary boundaries; scale; biophysical process; threshold; carrying capacity

Cite this article

CHEN Xian-peng, FANG Kai, PENG Jian, LIU Ai-yuan . New insights into assessing the carrying capacity of resources and the environment: The origin, development and prospects of the planetary boundaries framework[J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2020 , 35(3) : 513 -531 . DOI: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20200302

References

[1] CRUTZEN P J.Geology of mankind. Nature, 2002, 415(6867): 23.
[2] MEADOWS D H, MEADOWS D L, RANDERS J, et al.The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club Of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books, 1972.
[3] BISHOP R C.Endangered species and uncertainty: The economics of a safe minimum standard. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1978, 60(1): 10-18.
[4] DAILY G C, EHRLICH P R.Population, sustainability, and earth's carrying capacity. Bioscience, 1992, 42(10): 761-771.
[5] WACKERNAGEL M, REES W E.Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, 1996.
[6] BRUCKNER T, PETSCHEL-HELD G, LEIMBACH M, et al.Methodological aspects of the tolerable windows approach. Climatic Change, 2003, 56: 73-89.
[7] RAFFENSPERGER C, TICKNER J, EDITORS. Protecting Public Health & the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington D C: Island Press, 1999.
[8] LINDER G, BRUMBAUGH W, NEITLICH P, et al.Atmospheric deposition and critical loads for nitrogen and metals in arctic Alaska: Review and current status. Open Journal of Air Pollution, 2013, 2: 76-99.
[9] 张林波, 李文华, 刘孝富, 等. 承载力理论的起源、发展与展望. 生态学报, 2009, 29(2): 878-888.
[ZHANG L B, LI W H, LIU X F, et al.Carrying capacity: Origin, development and prospective. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2009, 29(2): 878-888.]
[10] JORGENSON D W, GRILICHES Z.The explanation of productivity change. The Review of Economic Studies, 1967, 34(3): 249-283.
[11] 陆铭. 城市承载力是个伪命题. 商业周刊, 2017-12-15. http://www.acem.sjtu.edu.cn/psc/ACEMPRD/EMPLOYEE/CRM/s/WEBLIB_SPE_ISCT.TZ_SETSPE_ISCRIPT.FieldFormula.IScript_viewArtHTML1?TZ_ART_ID=33109.
[LU M.Urban carrying capacity is a false proposition. Bloomberg Businessweek, 2017-12-15. http://www.acem.sjtu.edu.cn/psc/ACEMPRD/EMPLOYEE/CRM/s/WEBLIB_SPE_ISCT.TZ_SETSPE_ISCRIPT.FieldFormula.IScript_viewArtHTML1?TZ_ART_ID=33109.]
[12] REES W E.Revisiting carrying capacity: Area-based indicators of sustainability. Population and Environment, 1996, 17(3): 195-215.
[13] 石忆邵, 尹昌应, 王贺封, 等. 城市综合承载力的研究进展及展望. 地理研究, 2013, 32(1): 133-145.
[SHI Y S, YIN C Y, WANG H F, et al.Research progress and prospect on urban comprehensive carrying capacity. Geographical Research, 2013, 32(1): 133-145.]
[14] 许明军, 杨子生. 西南山区资源环境承载力评价及协调发展分析: 以云南省德宏州为例. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(10): 1726-1738.
[XU M J, YANG Z S.The evaluation and analysis of coordinated development on resources and environment carrying capacity in southwestern mountainous area of China: A case in Dehong Dai-Jingpo Autonomous Prefecture, Yunnan province. Journal of Natural Resources, 2016, 31(10): 1726-1738.]
[15] 杨屹, 胡蝶. 生态脆弱区榆林三维生态足迹动态变化及其驱动因素. 自然资源学报, 2018, 33(7): 1204-1217.
[YANG Y, HU D.Dynamic changes and driving factors of three dimensional ecological footprint in Yulin. Journal of Natural Resources, 2018, 33(7): 1204-1217.]
[16] 封志明, 李鹏. 承载力概念的源起与发展: 基于资源环境视角的讨论. 自然资源学报, 2018, 33(9): 1475-1489.
[FENG Z M, LI P.The genesis and evolution of the concept of carrying capacity: A view of natural resources and environment. Journal of Natural Resources, 2018, 33(9): 1475-1489.]
[17] PARRY M, LOWE J, HANSON C.Overshoot, adapt and recover. Nature, 2009, 458(7242): 1102-1103.
[18] ROCKSTRÖM J, STEFFEN W, NOONE K, et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 2009, 461(7263): 472-475.
[19] ROCKSTRÖM J, STEFFEN W, NOONE K, et al. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 2009, 14(2): 32. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/.
[20] HEFFERNAN O.A safe space. Nature Reports Climate Change, 2009, 3: 109.
[21] 方恺. 基于足迹家族和行星边界的主要国家环境可持续性多维评价. 生态环境学报, 2014, 23(11): 1868-1875.
[FANG K.Multidimensional assessment of national environmental sustainability based on footprint family and planetary boundaries. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2014, 23(11): 1868-1875.]
[22] 方恺, 段峥. 全球主要国家环境可持续性综合评估: 基于碳、水、土地的足迹—边界整合分析. 自然资源学报, 2015, 30(4): 539-548.
[FANG K, DUAN Z.An integrated assessment of national environmental sustainability by synthesizing carbon, water and land footprints and boundaries. Journal of Natural Resources, 2015, 30(4): 539-548.]
[23] LENTON T M, WILLIAMS H T.On the origin of planetary-scale tipping points. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2013, 28(7): 380-382.
[24] SCHEFFER M, BASCOMPTE J, BROCK W A, et al.Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature, 2009, 461(3): 53-59.
[25] HUGHES T P, CARPENTER S, ROCKSTRÖM J, et al. Multiscale regime shifts and planetary boundaries. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2013, 28(7): 389-395.
[26] ANDERSEN T, CARSTENSEN J, HERNÁNDEZ-GARCÍA E, et al. Ecological thresholds and regime shifts: Approaches to identification. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2009, 24(1): 49-57.
[27] STEFFEN W, RICHARDSON K, ROCKSTRÖM J, et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 2015, 347(6223): 1259855, Doi: 10.1126/science.1259855.
[28] BARNOSKY A D, HADLY E A, BASCOMPTE J, et al.Approaching a state shift in Earth's biosphere. Nature, 2012, 486(7401): 52.
[29] BROOK B W, ELLIS E C, PERRING M P, et al.Does the terrestrial biosphere have planetary tipping points?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2013, 28(7): 396-401, Doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.01.016.
[30] ANDERIES J M, CARPENTER S R, STEFFEN W, et al.The topology of non-linear global carbon dynamics: From tipping points to planetary boundaries. Environmental Research Letters, 2013, 8(4): 044048, Doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044048.
[31] NASH K L, CVITANOVIC C, FULTON E A, et al.Planetary boundaries for a blue planet. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2017, 1: 1625-1634.
[32] HECK V, GERTEN D, LUCHT W, et al.Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nature Climate Change, 2018, 8(2): 151-155.
[33] BAUCH C T, SIGDEL R, PHARAON J, et al.Early warning signals of regime shifts in coupled human-environment systems. PNAS, 2016, 113(51): 14560-14567.
[34] VENKATESH G, CHAN A, BRATTEBØ H.Understanding the water-energy-carbon nexus in urban water utilities: Comparison of four city case studies and the relevant influencing factors. Energy, 2014, 75: 153-166.
[35] MANNSCHATZ T, WOLF T, HÜLSMANN S. Nexus tools platform: Web-based comparison of modelling tools for analysis of water-soil-waste nexus. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2016, 76: 137-153.
[36] HANES R J, GOPALAKRISHNAN V, BAKSHI B R.Including nature in the food-energy-water nexus can improve sustainability across multiple ecosystem services. Resources Conservation & Recycling, 2018, 137: 214-228.
[37] CHANDRAKUMAR C, MCLAREN S J.Towards a comprehensive absolute sustainability assessment method for effective earth system governance: Defining key environmental indicators using an enhanced-DPSIR framework. Ecological Indicators, 2018, 90: 577-583.
[38] LEWIS S L.We must set planetary boundaries wisely. Nature, 2012, 485(7399): 417.
[39] GALAZ V, CORNELL S, ROCKSTRÖM J, et al. Planetary boundaries concept is valuable. Nature, 2012, 486(7402): 191.
[40] RUNNING S W.Ecology: A measurable planetary boundary for the biosphere. Science, 2012, 337(6101): 1458-1459.
[41] ERB K H, HABERL H, DEFRIES R, et al.Pushing the planetary boundaries. Science, 2012, 338(6113): 1419-1420.
[42] SCHLESINGER W H.Planetary boundaries: Thresholds risk prolonged degradation. Nature Reports Climate Change, 2009, 3: 112-113.
[43] BASS S.Planetary boundaries: Keep off the grass. Nature Reports Climate Change, 2009, 3: 113-114.
[44] ALLEN M.Planetary boundaries: Tangible targets are critical. Nature Reports Climate Change, 2009, 3: 114-115.
[45] MOLINA M J.Planetary boundaries: Identifying abrupt change. Nature Reports Climate Change, 2009, 3: 115-116.
[46] MOLDEN D.Planetary boundaries: The devil is in the detail. Nature Reports Climate Change, 2009, 3: 116-117.
[47] BREWER P.Planetary boundaries: Consider all consequences. Nature Reports Climate Change, 2009, 3: 117-118.
[48] SAMPER C.Planetary boundaries: Rethinking biodiversity. Nature Reports Climate Change, 2009, 3: 118-119.
[49] ANTONINI C, LARRINAGA C.Planetary boundaries and sustainability indicators: A survey of corporate reporting boundaries. Sustainable Development, 2017, 25(2): 123-137.
[50] BJØRN A, BEY N, GEORG S, et al. Is earth recognized as a finite system in corporate responsibility reporting?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 163: 106-117.
[51] CLIFT R, SIM S, KING H, et al.The challenges of applying planetary boundaries as a basis for strategic decision-making in companies with global supply chains. Sustainability, 2017, 9: 279, Doi: 10.3390/su9020279.
[52] COLE M J, BAILEY R M, NEW M G.Spatial variability in sustainable development trajectories in South Africa: Provincial level safe and just operating spaces. Sustainability Science, 2017, 12: 829-848.
[53] COLE M J, BAILEY R M, NEW M G.Tracking sustainable development with a national barometer for South Africa using a downscaled "safe and just space" framework. PNAS, 2014, 111(42): E4399-E4408.
[54] DAO H, PEDUZZI P, FRIOT D.National environmental limits and footprints based on the planetary boundaries framework: The case of Switzerland. Global Environmental Change, 2018, 52: 49-57.
[55] DEARING J A, WANG R, ZHANG K, et al.Safe and just operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems. Global Environmental Change, 2014, 28(1): 227-238.
[56] FANG K, HEIJUNGS R, SNOO G R D. Understanding the complementary linkages between environmental footprints and planetary boundaries in a footprint-boundary environmental sustainability assessment framework. Ecological Economics, 2015, 114: 218-226.
[57] FANNING A L, O'NEILL D W. Tracking resource use relative to planetary boundaries in a steady-state framework: A case study of Canada and Spain. Ecological Indicators, 2016, 69: 836-849.
[58] HOFF H, NYKVIST B, CARSON M. "Living well, within the limits of our planet"?. Measuring Europe's growing external footprint. Stockholm Environment Institute, Working Paper, 2014-05. https://mediamanager.sei.org/documents/Publications/SEI-WP-2014-05-Hoff-EU-Planetary-boundaries.
[59] HOORNWEG D, HOSSEINI M, KENNEDY C, et al.An urban approach to planetary boundaries. AMBIO, 2016, 45(5): 1-14.
[60] NYKVIST B, PERSSON Å, MOBERG F, et al.National environmental performance on planetary boundaries: A study for the Swedish environmental protection agency. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2013. http://naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-620-6576-8.pdf?pid=8514.
[61] O'NEILL D W, FANNING A L, LAMB W F, et al. A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nature Sustainability, 2018, 1: 88-95.
[62] WHITEMAN G, WALKER B, PEREGO P.Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 2013, 50(2): 307-336.
[63] HÄYHÄ T, LUCAS P L, VAN VUUREN D P, et al. From planetary boundaries to national fair shares of the global safe operating space: How can the scales be bridged?. Global Environmental Change, 2016, 40: 60-72.
[64] HAFFAR M, SEARCY C.Target-setting for ecological resilience: Are companies setting environmental sustainability targets in line with planetary thresholds?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2018, 27(7): 1079-1092.
[65] MATHIAS J D, ANDERIES J M, JANSSEN M A.On our rapidly shrinking capacity to comply with the planetary boundaries on climate change. Scientific Reports, 2017, 7: 42061, Doi: 10.1038/srep42061.
[66] MACE G M, REYERS B, ALKEMADE R, et al.Approaches to defining a planetary boundary for biodiversity. Global Environmental Change, 2014, 28: 289-297.
[67] MONTOYA J M, DONOHUE I, PIMM S L.Planetary boundaries for biodiversity: Implausible science, pernicious policies. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2018, 33(2): 71-73.
[68] ROCKSTRÖM J, RICHARDSON K, STEFFEN W, et al. Planetary boundaries: Separating fact from fiction. A response to Montoya. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2018, 33(4): 232-233.
[69] JARAMILLO F, DESTOUNI G.Comment on "Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet". Science, 2015, 348(6240): 1217.
[70] GERTEN D, ROCKSTRÖM J, HEINKE J, et al. Response to comment on "Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet". Science, 2015, 348(6240): 1217, Doi: 10.1126/science.aab0031.
[71] GERTEN D, HOFF H, ROCKSTRÖM J, et al. Towards a revised planetary boundary for consumptive freshwater use: Role of environmental flow requirements. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2013, 5(6): 551-558.
[72] BOGARDI J J, FEKETE B M, VÖRÖSMARTY C J. Planetary boundaries revisited: A view through the "water lens". Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2013, 5(6): 1-9.
[73] HECK V, HOFF H, WIRSENIUS S, et al.Land use options for staying within the planetary boundaries-synergies and trade-offs between global and local sustainability goals. Global Environmental Change, 2018, 49: 73-84.
[74] VRIES W D, KROS J, KROEZE C, et al.Assessing planetary and regional nitrogen boundaries related to food security and adverse environmental impacts. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2013, 5(3-4): 392-402.
[75] CARPENTER S R, BENNETT E M.Reconsideration of the planetary boundary for phosphorus. Environmental Research Letters, 2011, 6(1): 014009, Doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014009.
[76] PERSSON L M, BREITHOLTZ M, COUSINS I T, et al.Confronting unknown planetary boundary threats from chemical pollution. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 47(22): 12619-12622.
[77] DIAMOND M L, DE WIT C A, MOLANDER S, et al. Exploring the planetary boundary for chemical pollution. Environment International, 2015, 78: 8-15.
[78] LIU J G, MOONEY H, HULL V, et al.Systems integration for global sustainability. Science, 2015, 347(6225): 1258832, Doi: 10.1126/science.1258832.
[79] RYBERG M W, OWSIANIAK M, RICHARDSON K, et al.Challenges in implementing a planetary boundaries based life-cycle impact assessment methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016, 139: 450-459.
[80] LAURENT A, OWSIANIAK M.Potentials and limitations of footprints for gauging environmental sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2017, 25: 20-27.
[81] HAUSCHILD M Z, GOEDKOOP M, GUINÉE J, et al. Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2013, 18(3): 683-697.
[82] FANG K, HEIJUNGS R, DE SNOO R G. Theoretical exploration for the combination of the ecological, energy, carbon, and water footprints: Overview of a footprint family. Ecological Indicators, 2014, 36: 508-518.
[83] HOEKSTRA A Y, WIEDMANN T O.Humanity's unsustainable environmental footprint. Science, 2014, 344(6188): 1114-1117.
[84] TUOMISTO H L, HODGE I D, RIORDAN P, et al.Exploring a safe operating approach to weighting in life cycle impact assessment: A case study of organic, conventional and integrated farming systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2012, 37(4): 147-153.
[85] SALA S, GORALCZYK M.Chemical footprint: A methodological framework for bridging life cycle assessment and planetary boundaries for chemical pollution. Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management, 2013, 9(4): 623-632.
[86] BJØRN A, HAUSCHILD M Z. Introducing carrying capacity-based normalisation in LCA: Framework and development of references at midpoint level. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2015, 20(7): 1005-1018.
[87] SANDIN G, PETERS G M, SVANSTRÖM M. Using the planetary boundaries framework for setting impact-reduction targets in LCA contexts. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2015, 20(12): 1684-1700.
[88] DOOREN C V, AIKING H, VELLINGA P.In search of indicators to assess the environmental impact of diets. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2018, 23(6): 1297-1314.
[89] RAWORTH K.A safe and just space for humanity: Can we live within the doughnut?. Oxfam Policy & Practice: Climate Change & Resilience, 2012, 8: 1-26.
[90] RAWORTH K.A doughnut for the anthropocene: Humanity's compass in the 21^st century. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2017, 1(2): e48-e49, Doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30028-1.
[91] 靳相木, 李陈. 土地承载力研究范式的变迁、分化及其综论. 自然资源学报, 2018, 33(3): 526-540.
[JIN X M, LI C.Paradigm shift in the study of land carrying capacity: An overview. Journal of Natural Resources, 2018, 33(3): 526-540.]

Options

Outlines

模态框（Modal）标题

Abstract

Cite this article

References