Institution
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Nonprofit•Stockholm, Sweden•
About: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is a nonprofit organization based out in Stockholm, Sweden. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope & Sustainability. The organization has 323 authors who have published 1147 publications receiving 142017 citations. The organization is also known as: Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien.
Topics: Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, Sustainability, Ecosystem services, Population, Climate change
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Stockholm Environment Institute1, Stockholm University2, Australian National University3, University of Alaska Fairbanks4, Université catholique de Louvain5, University of East Anglia6, Wageningen University and Research Centre7, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences8, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research9, University of Oxford10, James Cook University11, Arizona State University12, Royal Institute of Technology13, University of Minnesota14, University of Vermont15, Stockholm International Water Institute16, California State University San Marcos17, Goddard Institute for Space Studies18, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation19, University of Arizona20, Max Planck Society21
TL;DR: Identifying and quantifying planetary boundaries that must not be transgressed could help prevent human activities from causing unacceptable environmental change, argue Johan Rockstrom and colleagues.
Abstract: Identifying and quantifying planetary boundaries that must not be transgressed could help prevent human activities from causing unacceptable environmental change, argue Johan Rockstrom and colleagues.
8,837 citations
••
Australian National University1, Stockholm Resilience Centre2, University of Copenhagen3, McGill University4, Stellenbosch University5, University of Wisconsin-Madison6, Wageningen University and Research Centre7, Stockholm University8, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences9, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research10, International Livestock Research Institute11, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation12, University College London13, Stockholm Environment Institute14, The Energy and Resources Institute15, University of California, San Diego16, Royal Institute of Technology17
TL;DR: An updated and extended analysis of the planetary boundary (PB) framework and identifies levels of anthropogenic perturbations below which the risk of destabilization of the Earth system (ES) is likely to remain low—a “safe operating space” for global societal development.
Abstract: The planetary boundaries framework defines a safe operating space for humanity based on the intrinsic biophysical processes that regulate the stability of the Earth system. Here, we revise and update the planetary boundary framework, with a focus on the underpinning biophysical science, based on targeted input from expert research communities and on more general scientific advances over the past 5 years. Several of the boundaries now have a two-tier approach, reflecting the importance of cross-scale interactions and the regional-level heterogeneity of the processes that underpin the boundaries. Two core boundaries—climate change and biosphere integrity—have been identified, each of which has the potential on its own to drive the Earth system into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed.
7,169 citations
••
TL;DR: The resilience perspective is increasingly used as an approach for understanding the dynamics of social-ecological systems as mentioned in this paper, which emphasizes non-linear dynamics, thresholds, uncertainty and surprise, how periods of gradual change interplay with periods of rapid change and how such dynamics interact across temporal and spatial scales.
Abstract: The resilience perspective is increasingly used as an approach for understanding the dynamics of social–ecological systems. This article presents the origin of the resilience perspective and provides an overview of its development to date. With roots in one branch of ecology and the discovery of multiple basins of attraction in ecosystems in the 1960–1970s, it inspired social and environmental scientists to challenge the dominant stable equilibrium view. The resilience approach emphasizes non-linear dynamics, thresholds, uncertainty and surprise, how periods of gradual change interplay with periods of rapid change and how such dynamics interact across temporal and spatial scales. The history was dominated by empirical observations of ecosystem dynamics interpreted in mathematical models, developing into the adaptive management approach for responding to ecosystem change. Serious attempts to integrate the social dimension is currently taking place in resilience work reflected in the large numbers of sciences involved in explorative studies and new discoveries of linked social–ecological systems. Recent advances include understanding of social processes like, social learning and social memory, mental models and knowledge–system integration, visioning and scenario building, leadership, agents and actor groups, social networks, institutional and organizational inertia and change, adaptive capacity, transformability and systems of adaptive governance that allow for management of essential ecosystem services.
4,899 citations
••
Stockholm University1, Stockholm Environment Institute2, Australian National University3, University of Alaska Fairbanks4, Université catholique de Louvain5, University of East Anglia6, Wageningen University and Research Centre7, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences8, University of Oxford9, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research10, James Cook University11, Arizona State University12, Royal Institute of Technology13, University of Minnesota14, University of Vermont15, Stockholm International Water Institute16, California State University San Marcos17, Goddard Institute for Space Studies18, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation19, University of Arizona20, University of Copenhagen21, Max Planck Society22
TL;DR: In this article, the authors proposed a new approach to global sustainability in which they define planetary boundaries within which they expect that humanity can operate safely. But the proposed concept of "planetary boundaries" lays the groundwork for shifting our approach to governance and management, away from the essentially sectoral analyses of limits to growth aimed at minimizing negative externalities, toward the estimation of the safe space for human development.
Abstract: Anthropogenic pressures on the Earth System have reached a scale where abrupt global environmental change can no longer be excluded. We propose a new approach to global sustainability in which we define planetary boundaries within which we expect that humanity can operate safely. Transgressing one or more planetary boundaries may be deleterious or even catastrophic due to the risk of crossing thresholds that will trigger non-linear, abrupt environmental change within continental- to planetary-scale systems. We have identified nine planetary boundaries and, drawing upon current scientific understanding, we propose quantifications for seven of them. These seven are climate change (CO2 concentration in the atmosphere <350 ppm and/or a maximum change of +1 W m-2 in radiative forcing); ocean acidification (mean surface seawater saturation state with respect to aragonite ≥ 80% of pre-industrial levels); stratospheric ozone (<5% reduction in O3 concentration from pre-industrial level of 290 Dobson Units); biogeochemical nitrogen (N) cycle (limit industrial and agricultural fixation of N2 to 35 Tg N yr-1) and phosphorus (P) cycle (annual P inflow to oceans not to exceed 10 times the natural background weathering of P); global freshwater use (<4000 km3 yr-1 of consumptive use of runoff resources); land system change (<15% of the ice-free land surface under cropland); and the rate at which biological diversity is lost (annual rate of <10 extinctions per million species). The two additional planetary boundaries for which we have not yet been able to determine a boundary level are chemical pollution and atmospheric aerosol loading. We estimate that humanity has already transgressed three planetary boundaries: for climate change, rate of biodiversity loss, and changes to the global nitrogen cycle. Planetary boundaries are interdependent, because transgressing one may both shift the position of other boundaries or cause them to be transgressed. The social impacts of transgressing boundaries will be a function of the social-ecological resilience of the affected societies. Our proposed boundaries are rough, first estimates only, surrounded by large uncertainties and knowledge gaps. Filling these gaps will require major advancements in Earth System and resilience science. The proposed concept of "planetary boundaries" lays the groundwork for shifting our approach to governance and management, away from the essentially sectoral analyses of limits to growth aimed at minimizing negative externalities, toward the estimation of the safe space for human development. Planetary boundaries define, as it were, the boundaries of the "planetary playing field" for humanity if we want to be sure of avoiding major human-induced environmental change on a global scale.
4,771 citations
••
Harvard University1, Stockholm Resilience Centre2, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research3, University of Oxford4, City University London5, World Wide Fund for Nature6, Chatham House7, Environmental Change Institute8, University of Minnesota9, University of California, Santa Barbara10, CGIAR11, Johns Hopkins University12, American University of Beirut13, Wageningen University and Research Centre14, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation15, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur16, ETH Zurich17, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation18, University of Indonesia19, World Health Organization20, Food and Agriculture Organization21, International Food Policy Research Institute22, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences23, University of Auckland24, Public Health Foundation of India25, Centre for Science and Environment26
TL;DR: Food in the Anthropocene : the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems focuses on meat, fish, vegetables and fruit as sources of protein.
4,710 citations
Authors
Showing all 327 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Kaj Blennow | 160 | 1845 | 116237 |
David Tilman | 158 | 340 | 149473 |
Jan Conrad | 141 | 826 | 71445 |
Carl Folke | 133 | 360 | 125990 |
Stephen R. Carpenter | 131 | 464 | 109624 |
Simon A. Levin | 125 | 614 | 73620 |
Kenneth J. Arrow | 113 | 411 | 111221 |
Paul R. Ehrlich | 113 | 489 | 55175 |
Göran K. Hansson | 107 | 414 | 56595 |
Bertil B. Fredholm | 101 | 514 | 43752 |
Stephen Polasky | 99 | 354 | 59148 |
Gretchen C. Daily | 96 | 256 | 56204 |
Staffan Normark | 96 | 289 | 29787 |
Lena Claesson-Welsh | 94 | 266 | 36341 |
Bengt Herbert Kasemo | 89 | 473 | 35192 |