| 1. |
- Hamann, Maike, et al.
(author)
-
Inequality and the biosphere
- 2018
-
In: Annual Review of Environment and Resources. - : Annual Reviews. - 1543-5938 .- 1545-2050. ; 43, s. 61-83
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Rising inequalities and accelerating global environmental change pose two of the most pressing challenges of the twenty-first century. To explore how these phenomena are linked, we apply a social-ecological systems perspective and review the literature to identify six different types of interactions (or "pathways") between inequality and the biosphere. We find that most of the research so far has only considered one-directional effects of inequality on the biosphere, or vice versa. However, given the potential for complex dynamics between socioeconomic and environmental factors within social-ecological systems, we highlight examples from the literature that illustrate the importance of cross-scale interactions and feedback loops between inequality and the biosphere. This review draws on diverse disciplines to advance a systemic understanding of the linkages between inequality and the biosphere, specifically recognizing cross-scale feedbacks and the multidimensional nature of inequality.
|
|
| 2. |
- Liao, Chuan, et al.
(author)
-
Advancing landscape sustainability science: theoretical foundation and synergies with innovations in methodology, design, and application
- 2020
-
In: Landscape Ecology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0921-2973 .- 1572-9761. ; 35, s. 1-9
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- © 2020, Springer Nature B.V. Our society has entered in an era of Anthropocene, in which people and their activities dominate almost all ecosystems on the planet. In the context of growing uncertainties, landscape sustainability science (LSS), as a place-based, use-inspired science, aims to understand and improve the dynamic relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being. In this editorial, we identify the major theoretical foundations of LSS, discuss recent innovations in research methodology to advance LSS, summarize the extension of LSS through landscape design and geo-design, and examine the application of LSS for addressing sustainability challenges across multiple landscapes. We highlight that long-term regional sustainability can only be achieved by integrating context-based sustainability across agricultural, urban, and natural landscapes so as to minimize the regional ecological footprint and make advancement towards achieving the sustainable development goals.
|
|
| 3. |
- Qiu, Jiangxiao, et al.
(author)
-
Land-use intensity mediates ecosystem service tradeoffs across regional social-ecological systems
- 2021
-
In: Ecosystems and People. - : Informa UK Limited. - 2639-5908 .- 2639-5916. ; 17:1, s. 264-278
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- A key sustainability challenge in human-dominated landscapes is how to reconcile competing demands such as food production, water quality, climate regulation, and ecological amenities. Prior research has documented how efforts to prioritize desirable ecosystem services such as food and fiber have often led to tradeoffs with other services. However, the growing literature has revealed different and sometimes contradictory patterns in ecosystem service relationships. It thus remains unclear whether there are generalizable patterns across social-ecological systems, and if not, what factors explain the variations. In this study, we synthesize datasets of five ecosystem services from four social-ecological systems. We ask: (1) Are ecosystem service relationships consistent across distinct regional social-ecological systems? (2) How do ecosystem service relationships vary with land-use intensity at the landscape scale? (3) In case of ecosystem service tradeoffs, how does land-use intensity affect intersection points of tradeoffs along the landscape composition gradient? Our results reveal that land-use intensity increases magnitude of ecosystem service tradeoffs (e.g. food production vs. climate regulation and water quality) across landscapes. Land-use intensity also alters where provisioning and regulating services intersect: in high-intensity systems, food production and regulating services can be both sustained only at smaller proportions of agricultural lands, whereas in low-intensity systems, these services could be both supplied with greater proportions of agricultural lands. Our research demonstrates importance of considering multiple aspects of land uses (landscape composition and land-use intensity), and provides a more nuanced understanding and framework to enhance our ability to predict how land use alters ecosystem service relationships.
|
|
| 4. |
- Wu, Tong, et al.
(author)
-
Triple Bottom Line or Trilemma? Global Tradeoffs Between Prosperity, Inequality, and the Environment
- 2024
-
In: World Development. - 0305-750X .- 1873-5991. ; 178
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- A key aim of sustainable development is the joint achievement of prosperity, equality, and environmental integrity: in other words, material living standards that are high, broadly -distributed, and low -impact. This has often been called the triple bottom line. But instead, what if there is a trilemmathat inhibits the simultaneous achievement of these three goals? We analysed international patterns and trends in the relationships between per -capita gross national income, the Gini coefficient for income distribution, and per -capita ecological footprint from 1995 to 2017, benchmarking them against thresholds from the existing literature. A dynamicanalysis of the trajectories of 59 countries and a staticanalysis of a larger sample of 140 countries found that none met the triple bottom line, and that instead there were widespread tradeoffs among the three indicators. These tradeoffs, leading to divergent national trajectories and country clusters, show that common pair -wise explanations such as Kuznets Curves do not adequately capture important development dynamics. In particular, while only a few countries simultaneously met the thresholds for prosperity and equality on the one hand and equality and environment on the other, none did for prosperity and environment. Moreover, inequality likely makes resolving this critical tradeoff more difficult. Our findings suggest that mitigating the sustainability trilemma may require countries - especially those that are already prosperous - to prioritize economic redistribution and environmental stewardship over further growth.
|
|
