Abstract
Operating within safe and just Earth system boundaries requires mobilizing key actors across scale to set targets and take actions accordingly. Robust, transparent and fair cross-scale translation methods are essential to help navigate through the multiple steps of scientific and normative judgements in translation, with clear awareness of associated assumptions, bias and uncertainties. Here, through literature review and expert elicitation, we identify commonly used sharing approaches, illustrate ten principles of translation and present a protocol involving key building blocks and control steps in translation. We pay particular attention to businesses and cities, two understudied but critical actors to bring on board.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
-
Rockström, J. et al. Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature 619, 102–111 (2023). This paper proposes eight safe and just Earth system boundaries on climate, the biosphere, freshwater, nutrients and air pollution at global and subglobal scales and finds seven have been transgressed.
-
Rockström, J., Mazzucato, M., Andersen, L. S., Fahrländer, S. F. & Gerten, D. Why we need a new economics of water as a common good. Nature 615, 794–797 (2023).
-
Meyer, K. & Newman, P. The Planetary Accounting Framework: a novel, quota-based approach to understanding the impacts of any scale of human activity in the context of the planetary boundaries. Sustain. Earth 1, 4 (2018).
-
Meyer, K. & Newman, P. Planetary Accounting: Quantifying How to Live Within Planetary Limits at Different Scales of Human Activity (Springer, 2020).
-
Wang-Erlandsson, L. et al. A planetary boundary for green water. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 3, 380–392 (2022).
-
Chen, X., Li, C., Li, M. & Fang, K. Revisiting the application and methodological extensions of the planetary boundaries for sustainability assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 788, 147886 (2021).
-
Ryberg, M. W., Andersen, M. M., Owsianiak, M. & Hauschild, M. Z. Downscaling the planetary boundaries in absolute environmental sustainability assessments—a review. J. Clean. Prod. 276, 123287 (2020).
-
Stewart-Koster, B. et al. Living within the safe and just Earth system boundaries for blue water. Nat. Sustain. https://ift.tt/oNX6YyK (2023).
-
Bai, X. et al. How to stop cities and companies causing planetary harm. Nature 609, 463–466 (2022). This paper highlights the importance of linking planetary-level boundaries to cities and businesses as key actors and elaborate on seven knowledge gaps in cross-scale translation.
-
Whiteman, G., Walker, B. & Perego, P. Planetary boundaries: ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. J. Manage. Stud. 50, 307–336 (2013).
-
Science-Based Targets for Nature: Initial Guidance for Business (Science Based Target Network, 2020); https://ift.tt/gBpGa5V
-
Companies Taking Action Beta Version (SBTi, 2023); https://ift.tt/f8dJ7bX
-
Bjørn, A., Tilsted, J. P., Addas, A. & Lloyd, S. M. Can science-based targets make the private sector Paris-aligned? A review of the emerging evidence. Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 8, 53–69 (2022).
-
Lucas, P. L., Wilting, H. C., Hof, A. F. & van Vuuren, D. P. Allocating planetary boundaries to large economies: distributional consequences of alternative perspectives on distributive fairness. Glob. Environ. Change 60, 102017 (2020). This paper applies grandfathering, ‘equal per capita’ share and ‘ability to pay’ to allocate and compare planetary boundary-based global budgets for CO2 emissions (climate change), intentional nitrogen fixation and phosphorus fertilizer use (biogeochemical flows), cropland use (land-use change) and mean species abundance loss (biodiversity loss) for the European Union, United States, China and India.
-
Häyhä, T., Lucas, P. L., van Vuuren, D. P., Cornell, S. E. & Hoff, H. From planetary boundaries to national fair shares of the global safe operating space—how can the scales be bridged? Glob. Environ. Change 40, 60–72 (2016). This paper proposes a conceptual framework for translating planetary boundaries to national or regional implementation, taking into account the biophysical, socioeconomic and ethical dimensions for scaling planetary boundaries to the scales needed for implementation.
-
Clift, R. et al. The challenges of applying planetary boundaries as a basis for strategic decision-making in companies with global supply chains. Sustainability 9, 279 (2017).
-
Nilsson, M. & Persson, Å. Can Earth system interactions be governed? Governance functions for linking climate change mitigation with land use, freshwater and biodiversity protection. Ecol. Econ. 75, 61–71 (2012).
-
Busch, T., Cho, C. H., Hoepner, A. G. F., Michelon, G. & Rogelj, J. Corporate greenhouse gas emissions’ data and the urgent need for a science-led just transition: introduction to a thematic symposium. J. Bus. Ethics 182, 897–901 (2023).
-
Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).
-
Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).
-
Chandrakumar, C. et al. Setting better-informed climate targets for New Zealand: the influence of value and modeling choices. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 4515–4527 (2020).
-
Raupach, M. R. et al. Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 873–879 (2014).
-
van den Berg, N. J. et al. Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways. Climatic Change 162, 1805–1822 (2020).
-
Höhne, N., den Elzen, M. & Escalante, D. Regional GHG reduction targets based on effort sharing: a comparison of studies. Clim. Policy 14, 122–147 (2014). Through a comparison of more than 40 studies on national or regional allocations of future GHG emissions allowances or reduction targets using different effort-sharing approaches, this paper finds that the range in allowances within specific categories of effort-sharing can be substantial, the outcome of effort-sharing approaches is driven largely by how the equity principle is implemented, and the distributional impacts differed significantly depending on the effort-sharing criteria used.
-
Steininger, K. W., Williges, K., Meyer, L. H., Maczek, F. & Riahi, K. Sharing the effort of the European Green Deal among countries. Nat. Commun. 13, 3673 (2022). This paper presents an effort-sharing approach that systematically combines different interpretations of justice or equity expressed through capability, equality and responsibility principles to allocate emissions reduction burden among European Union member states.
-
Sun, Z., Behrens, P., Tukker, A., Bruckner, M. & Scherer, L. Shared and environmentally just responsibility for global biodiversity loss. Ecol. Econ. 194, 107339 (2022).
-
Perdomo Echenique, E. A., Ryberg, M., Vea, E. B., Schwarzbauer, P. & Hesser, F. Analyzing the consequences of sharing principles on different economies: a case study of short rotation coppice poplar wood panel production value chain. Forests 13, 461 (2022).
-
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. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E4399–E4408 (2014).
-
Zhang, Q. et al. Bridging planetary boundaries and spatial heterogeneity in a hybrid approach: a focus on Chinese provinces and industries. Sci. Total Environ. 804, 150179 (2022).
-
Zipper, S. C. et al. Integrating the water planetary boundary with water management from local to global scales. Earths Future 8, e2019EF001377 (2020).
-
Zhou, P. & Wang, M. Carbon dioxide emissions allocation: a review. Ecol. Econ. 125, 47–59 (2016).
-
Bjørn, A. et al. Life cycle assessment applying planetary and regional boundaries to the process level: a model case study. Int J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 2241–2254 (2020).
-
Bjorn, A. et al. Review of life-cycle based methods for absolute environmental sustainability assessment and their applications. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 083001 (2020).
-
Li, M., Wiedmann, T., Fang, K. & Hadjikakou, M. The role of planetary boundaries in assessing absolute environmental sustainability across scales. Environ. Int 152, 106475 (2021).
-
Is Europe Living Within the Limits of Our Planet? An Assessment of Europe’s Environmental Footprints in Relation to Planetary Boundaries (EEA & FOEN, 2020); https://ift.tt/UwVYDIM
-
Hoff, H., Nykvist, B. & Carson, M. ‘Living Well, Within the Limits of Our Planet’? Measuring Europe’s Growing External Footprint (SEI, 2014); https://ift.tt/d2Taciy
-
Nykvist, B. et al. National Environmental Performance on Planetary Boundaries (SEI, 2013); https://ift.tt/O5bwimd
-
Hoff, H., Häyhä, T., Cornell, S. & Lucas, P. Bringing EU Policy into Line with the Planetary Boundaries (SEI, 2017); https://ift.tt/odVYvNU
-
Andersen, L. S. et al. A Safe Operating Space for New Zealand/Aotearoa: Translating the Planetary Boundaries Framework (Stockholm Resiliance Centre, 2020); https://ift.tt/0p5YEG6
-
Dao, H., Peduzzi, P. & Friot, D. National environmental limits and footprints based on the planetary boundaries framework: the case of Switzerland. Glob. Environ. Change 52, 49–57 (2018).
-
Häyhä, T., Cornell, S. E., Hoff, H., Lucas, P. & van Vuuren, D. Operationalizing the Concept of a Safe Operating Space at the EU Level—First Steps and Explorations (Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2018); https://ift.tt/gUn2eOC
-
Sandin, G., Peters, G. M. & Svanström, M. Using the planetary boundaries framework for setting impact-reduction targets in LCA contexts. Int J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 1684–1700 (2015).
-
Roos, S., Zamani, B., Sandin, G., Peters, G. M. & Svanström, M. A life cycle assessment (LCA)-based approach to guiding an industry sector towards sustainability: the case of the Swedish apparel sector. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 691–700 (2016).
-
Ryberg, M. W. et al. How to bring absolute sustainability into decision-making: an industry case study using a planetary boundary-based methodology. Sci. Total Environ. 634, 1406–1416 (2018).
-
Algunaibet, I. M. et al. Powering sustainable development within planetary boundaries. Energy Environ. Sci. 12, 1890–1900 (2019).
-
Lucas, E., Guo, M. & Guillén-Gosálbez, G. Optimising diets to reach absolute planetary environmental sustainability through consumers. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 28, 877–892 (2021).
-
Ehrenstein, M., Galán-Martín, Á., Tulus, V. & Guillén-Gosálbez, G. Optimising fuel supply chains within planetary boundaries: a case study of hydrogen for road transport in the UK. Appl. Energy 276, 115486 (2020).
-
Hjalsted, A. W. et al. Sharing the safe operating space: exploring ethical allocation principles to operationalize the planetary boundaries and assess absolute sustainability at individual and industrial sector levels. J. Ind. Ecol. 25, 6–19 (2021). This paper develops and tests a framework for sharing the planetary boundary-derived safe operating space among social actors on the basis of a two-step process of downscaling to individual level followed by upscaling from an individual share to a higher-level unit or entity such as company, organization, product, service, sector, household or nation; different ethical principles were explored in the downscaling and upscaling processes.
-
Hannouf, M., Assefa, G. & Gates, I. Carbon intensity threshold for Canadian oil sands industry using planetary boundaries: is a sustainable carbon-negative industry possible? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 151, 111529 (2021).
-
Wheeler, J., Galán-Martín, Á., Mele, F. D. & Guillén-Gosálbez, G. Designing biomass supply chains within planetary boundaries. AIChE J. 67, e17131 (2021).
-
Suárez-Eiroa, B. et al. A framework to allocate responsibilities of the global environmental concerns: a case study in Spain involving regions, municipalities, productive sectors, industrial parks, and companies. Ecol. Econ. 192, 107258 (2022). Using Spain as a case study, this paper presents the responsible operating space framework to allocate responsibilities for managing territorial and global environmental concerns to entities and social actors operating at different scales using a footprint perspective.
-
Brejnrod, K. N., Kalbar, P., Petersen, S. & Birkved, M. The absolute environmental performance of buildings. Build. Environ. 119, 87–98 (2017).
-
Chandrakumar, C., McLaren, S. J., Jayamaha, N. P. & Ramilan, T. Absolute sustainability-based life cycle assessment (ASLCA): a benchmarking approach to operate agri-food systems within the 2 °C global carbon budget. J. Ind. Ecol. 23, 906–917 (2019).
-
Desing, H., Braun, G. & Hischier, R. Ecological resource availability: a method to estimate resource budgets for a sustainable economy. Glob. Sustain. 3, e31 (2020).
-
Bjørn, A. et al. A comprehensive planetary boundary-based method for the nitrogen cycle in life cycle assessment: development and application to a tomato production case study. Sci. Total Environ. 715, 136813 (2020).
-
Bjørn, A. et al. A planetary boundary-based method for freshwater use in life cycle assessment: development and application to a tomato production case study. Ecol. Indic. 110, 105865 (2020).
-
Hachaichi, M. & Baouni, T. Downscaling the planetary boundaries (PBs) framework to city scale-level: de-risking MENA region’s environment future. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 5, 100023 (2020).
-
Wolff, A., Gondran, N. & Brodhag, C. Detecting unsustainable pressures exerted on biodiversity by a company. Application to the food portfolio of a retailer. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 784–797 (2017).
-
Ryberg, M. W., Bjerre, T. K., Nielsen, P. H. & Hauschild, M. Absolute environmental sustainability assessment of a Danish utility company relative to the planetary boundaries. J. Ind. Ecol. 25, 765–777 (2021).
-
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. Ecol. Indic. 69, 836–849 (2016).
-
Fang, K., Heijungs, R., Duan, Z. & De Snoo, G. R. The environmental sustainability of nations: benchmarking the carbon, water and land footprints against allocated planetary boundaries. Sustainability 7, 11285–11305 (2015).
-
O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F. & Steinberger, J. K. A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 1, 88–95 (2018).
-
Huang, L. H., Hu, A. H. & Kuo, C.-H. Planetary boundary downscaling for absolute environmental sustainability assessment—case study of Taiwan. Ecol. Indic. 114, 106339 (2020).
-
Sala, S., Crenna, E., Secchi, M. & Sanyé-Mengual, E. Environmental sustainability of European production and consumption assessed against planetary boundaries. J. Environ. Manage. 269, 110686 (2020).
-
Dao, Q.-H., Peduzzi, P., Chatenoux, B., De Bono, A. & Schwarzer, S. Environmental Limits and Swiss Footprints Based on Planetary Boundaries (UNEP/GRID-Geneva & Univ. Geneva, 2015).
-
Lucas, P. & Wilting, H. Using Planetary Boundaries to Support National Implementation of Environment-Related Sustainable Development Goals PBL publication number 2748 (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2018).
-
Kahiluoto, H., Kuisma, M., Kuokkanen, A., Mikkilä, M. & Linnanen, L. Local and social facets of planetary boundaries: right to nutrients. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 104013 (2015).
-
Li, M., Wiedmann, T. & Hadjikakou, M. Towards meaningful consumption-based planetary boundary indicators: The phosphorus exceedance footprint. Glob. Environ. Change 54, 227–238 (2019).
-
Shaikh, M. A., Hadjikakou, M. & Bryan, B. A. National-level consumption-based and production-based utilisation of the land-system change planetary boundary: patterns and trends. Ecol. Indic. 121, 106981 (2021).
-
Gupta, J. et al. Earth system justice needed to identify and live within Earth system boundaries. Nat. Sustain. https://ift.tt/b9tGAy6 (2023).
-
Armstrong McKay, D. I. et al. Exceeding 1.5 °C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points. Science 377, eabn7950 (2023).
-
Liu, J. Leveraging the metacoupling framework for sustainability science and global sustainable development. Natl Sci. Rev. 10, nwad090 (2023).
-
Bai, X. Eight energy and material flow characteristics of urban ecosystems. Ambio 45, 819–830 (2016).
-
Liu, J. et al. Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 1, 466–476 (2018).
-
Fang, K., Heijungs, R. & De Snoo, G. R. Understanding the complementary linkages between environmental footprints and planetary boundaries in a footprint–boundary environmental sustainability assessment framework. Ecol. Econ. 114, 218–226 (2015).
-
IPCC Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
-
Hoornweg, D., Hosseini, M., Kennedy, C. & Behdadi, A. An urban approach to planetary boundaries. Ambio 45, 567–580 (2016).
-
Population in the capital city, urban and rural areas. UN Data Portal http://data.un.org/ (2023).
-
Industrial Statistics Database, INDSTAT4 - 2023 edition at the 3- and 4-digit level of ISIC Revision 3 and ISIC Revision 4: INDSTAT 4 2023, ISIC Revision 4 (UNIDO, 2023); https://ift.tt/ONHxigK
-
Freiberg, D., Park, D. G., Serafim, G. & Zochowski, R. Corporate Environmental Impact: Measurement, Data and Information (Harvard Business School Accounting & Management Unit, 2021); https://ift.tt/j8ZFGrU
-
WBCSD & WRI The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard revised edn (WBCSD & WRI, 2004); https://ift.tt/C7LSpo8
-
Bjørn, A. et al. Increased transparency is needed for corporate science-based targets to be effective. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 756–759 (2023).
-
Bjorn, A., Lloyd, S. & Matthews, D. From the Paris Agreement to corporate climate commitments: evaluation of seven methods for setting ‘science-based’ emission targets. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 054019 (2021).
-
Lade, S. J. et al. Human impacts on planetary boundaries amplified by Earth system interactions. Nat. Sustain. 3, 119–128 (2020).
-
Kulionis, V. & Pfister, S. A planetary boundary-based method to assess freshwater use at the global and local scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 094031 (2022).
-
Obura, D. O. et al. Achieving a nature- and people-positive future. One Earth 6, 105–117 (2023).
-
Dooley, K. et al. Ethical choices behind quantifications of fair contributions under the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 300–305 (2021).
-
Hickel, J. Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary. Lancet Planet. Health 4, e399–e404 (2020).
-
Hickel, J., Neill, D. W. O., Fanning, A. L. & Zoomkawala, H. National responsibility for ecological breakdown: a fair-shares assessment of resource use, 1970–2017. Lancet Planet. Health 6, e342–e349 (2022).
-
Liu, J. et al. Systems integration for global sustainability. Science 347, 1258832 (2015).
-
Xu, H. et al. Ensuring effective implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity targets. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 411–418 (2021).
Acknowledgements
This work is part of the Earth Commission, which is hosted by Future Earth and is the science component of the Global Commons Alliance. The Global Commons Alliance is a sponsored project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, with support from Oak Foundation, MAVA, Porticus, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Tiina and Antti Herlin Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Global Environment Facility and Generation Foundation. The Earth Commission is also supported by the Global Challenges Foundation and Frontiers Research Foundation. Individual researchers were supported by the Australian Government (Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT200100381 to S.J.L.) and the Swedish Research Council Formas (grant 2020-00371 to S.J.L.). We thank S. Bringezu for his valuable inputs and V. Vijay for her comments on an earlier version of this paper. The authors take full responsibility for the contents and any remaining errors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
X.B., S.H., L.S.A., A.B., S.K., D. Ospina., J.L., S.E.C., O.S.M., A.d.B., B.C., F.D., J.G., H.H., N.N., D. Obura., G.W., W.B., S.J.L., J. Rockström., B.S.-K., D.v.V. and C.Z. contributed to the conceptualization and deliberation of the work. X.B. led the work and the writing process. S.H. led the literature review of sharing approaches. X.B., S.H., L.S.A., D. Ospina., A.B., S.K., J.L. and O.S.M. drafted the manuscript. S.H., X.B. and L.S.A. produced and finalized the figures. X.B., S.H., L.S.A., A.B., S.K., D. Ospina., J.L., S.E.C., O.S.M., A.d.B., B.C., F.D., J.G., H.H., N.N., D. Obura., G.W., W.B., S.J.L., J. Rocha, J. Rockström., B.S.-K., D.v.V. and C.Z. provided critical reviews, extensive comments and editing of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Sustainability thanks Cameron Allen, Daniel Hoornweg and Zhu Liu for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary information on method.
Supplementary Table 1
Inventory of literature on translation studies.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bai, X., Hasan, S., Andersen, L.S. et al. Translating Earth system boundaries for cities and businesses. Nat Sustain (2024). https://ift.tt/26x70N8
-
Received:
-
Accepted:
-
Published:
-
DOI: https://ift.tt/26x70N8