Our Future in The Anthropocene Biosphere

Ambio
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01544-8
WHITE PAPER
Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere

Carl Folke , Stephen Polasky, Johan Rockström, Victor Galaz,
Frances Westley, Michèle Lamont, Marten Scheffer, Henrik Österblom,
Stephen R. Carpenter, F. Stuart Chapin III, Karen C. Seto,
Elke U. Weber, Beatrice I. Crona, Gretchen C. Daily, Partha Dasgupta,
Owen Gaffney, Line J. Gordon, Holger Hoff, Simon A. Levin,
Jane Lubchenco, Will Steffen, Brian H. Walker
Received: 25 November 2020 / Revised: 31 January 2021 / Accepted: 10 February 2021
Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed an INTRODUCTION

interconnected and tightly coupled globalized world in
rapid change. This article sets the scientific stage for Humans are the dominant force of change on the planet,
understanding and responding to such change for global giving rise to a new epoch referred to as the Anthropocene.
sustainability and resilient societies. We provide a systemic This new epoch has profound meaning for humanity and
overview of the current situation where people and nature one that we are only beginning to fully comprehend. We
are dynamically intertwined and embedded in the now know that society needs to be viewed as part of the
biosphere, placing shocks and extreme events as part of biosphere, not separate from it. Depending on the collec-
this dynamic; humanity has become the major force in tive actions of humanity, future conditions could be either
shaping the future of the Earth system as a whole; and the beneficial or hostile for human life and wellbeing in the
scale and pace of the human dimension have caused Anthropocene biosphere. Whether humanity has the col-
climate change, rapid loss of biodiversity, growing lective wisdom to navigate the Anthropocene to sustain a
inequalities, and loss of resilience to deal with livable biosphere for people and civilizations, as well as for
uncertainty and surprise. Taken together, human actions the rest of life with which we share the planet, is the most
are challenging the biosphere foundation for a prosperous formidable challenge facing humanity.
development of civilizations. The Anthropocene reality— This article provides a systemic overview of the
of rising system-wide turbulence—calls for transformative Anthropocene biosphere, a biosphere shaped by human
change towards sustainable futures. Emerging actions. It is structured around the core themes of the first
technologies, social innovations, broader shifts in cultural Nobel Prize Summit—Our Planet, Our Future, namely
repertoires, as well as a diverse portfolio of active climate change and biodiversity loss, inequality and global
stewardship of human actions in support of a resilient sustainability, and science, technology, and innovation to
biosphere are highlighted as essential parts of such enable societal transformations while anticipating and
transformations. reducing potential harms (Box 1). These interconnected
themes are framed in the context of the biosphere and the
Keywords Anthropocene Biosphere stewardship Earth system foundation for global sustainability, empha-
Biodiversity Climate Resilience Social-ecological sizing that people and nature are deeply intertwined. Sci-
entific evidence makes clear that both climate change and
biodiversity loss are symptoms of the great acceleration of
human actions into the Anthropocene, rather than inde-
pendent phenomena, and that they interact, and interact
with social, economic, and cultural development. It
emphasizes that efficiency through simplification of our
global production ecosystem challenges biosphere resi-
This work has not been officially peer-reviewed and represents the
authors’ personal but well supported read and understanding of the lience in times when resilience is needed more than ever, as
field. a critical asset of flexibility and insurance, for navigating
Ó The Author(s) 2021

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
BOX 1 The first Nobel Prize Summit - Our Planet, Our Future
The first Nobel Prize Summit, Our Planet, Our Future, is an online convening to discuss the state of the planet at a
critical juncture for humanity. The Summit brings together Nobel Laureates and other leading scientists with thought
leaders, policy makers, business leaders, and young people to explore solutions to immediate challenges facing our
global civilization: mitigate and adapt to the threat posed by climate change and biodiversity loss, reduce inequalities
and lift people out of poverty, and made even more urgent due to the economic hardships posed by the pandemic, and
harness science, technology, and innovation to enable societal transformations while anticipating and reducing potential
harms. The Nobel Prize Summit includes both workshops, publications, and online programmes in forms of webinars,
pre-events, and the Nobel Prize Summit days on April 26–28, 2021. The Summit is convened by the Nobel Foundation,
in partnership with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and the
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University/Beijer Institute, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. This article
is a condensed and updated version of the White Paper ‘‘Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere: global sustainability
and resilient societies’’ (Folke et al. 2020) written for the Nobel Prize Summit.
rising turbulence, extreme events, and the profound THE BIOSPHERE AND THE EARTH SYSTEM
uncertainty of the Anthropocene. This implies that not only FOUNDATION
will it be critical to curb human-induced climate change
but also to enhance the regenerative capacity of the bio- Embedded in the biosphere
sphere, and its diversity, to support and sustain societal
development, to collaborate with the planet that is our The Universe is immense, estimates suggest at least two
home, and collaborate in a socially just and sustainable trillion galaxies (Conselice et al. 2016). Our galaxy, the
manner. This is the focus of the last part of this article on Milky Way, holds 100 to 400 billion stars. One of those
biosphere stewardship for prosperity. We stress that pros- stars, our sun, has eight planets orbiting it. One of those,
perity and wellbeing for present and future generations will planet Earth, has a biosphere, a complex web of life, at its
require mobilization, innovation, and narratives of societal surface. The thickness of this layer is about twenty kilo-
transformations that connect development to stewardship metres (twelve miles). This layer, our biosphere, is the only
of human actions as part of our life-supporting biosphere. place where we know life exists. We humans emerged and

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
Fig. 1 The home of humankind. Our economies, societies, and civilizations are embedded in the Biosphere, the thin layer of life on planet Earth.
There is a dynamic interplay between the living biosphere and the broader Earth system, with the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the lithosphere,
the cryosphere, and the climate system. Humans have become a major force in shaping this interplay. Artwork by J. Lokrantz, Azote
evolved within the biosphere. Our economies, societies, worldwide interactions and dependencies (Folke et al.
and cultures are part of it. It is our home. 2016).
Across the ocean and the continents, the biosphere Belief systems that view humans and nature as separate
integrates all living beings, their diversity, and their rela- entities have emerged with economic development, tech-
tionships. There is a dynamic connection between the liv- nological change, and cultural evolution. But the fact that
ing biosphere and the broader Earth system, with the humans are living within and dependent upon a resilient
atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the lithosphere, the cryo- biosphere has and will not change. Existing as embedded
sphere, and the climate system. Life in the biosphere is within the biosphere means that the environment is not
shaped by the global atmospheric circulation, jet streams, something outside the economy or society, or a driver to be
atmospheric rivers, water vapour and precipitation patterns, accounted for when preferred, but rather the very founda-
the spread of ice sheets and glaciers, soil formation, tion that civilizations exist within and rely upon (Fig. 1).
upwelling currents of coastlines, the ocean’s global con-
veyer belt, the distribution of the ozone layer, movements A dominant force on earth
of the tectonic plates, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions.
Water serves as the bloodstream of the biosphere, and the The human population reached one billion around 1800. It
carbon, nitrogen, and other biogeochemical cycles are doubled to two billion around 1930, and doubled again to
essential for all life on Earth (Falkenmark et al. 2019; four billion around 1974. The global population is now
Steffen et al. 2020). It is the complex adaptive interplay approaching 8 billion and is expected to stabilize around
between living organisms, the climate, and broader Earth 9–11 billion towards the end of this century (UN 2019).
system processes that has evolved into a resilient During the past century, and especially since the 1950s,
biosphere. there has been an amazing acceleration and expansion of
The biosphere has existed for about 3.5 billion years. human activities into a converging globalized society,
Modern humans (Homo sapiens) have effectively been supported by the discovery and use of fossil energy and
around in the biosphere for some 250 000 years (Mounier innovations in social organization, technology, and cultural
and Lahr 2019). Powered by the sun, the biosphere and the evolution (Ellis 2015; van der Leeuw 2019). Globalization
Earth system coevolve with human actions as an integral has helped focus attention on human rights, international
part of this coevolution (Lenton 2016; Jörgensen et al. relations, and agreements leading to collaboration (Keo-
2019). Social conditions, health, culture, democracy, hane et al. 2009; Rogelj et al. 2016; Bain 2019) and, rather
power, justice, inequity, matters of security, and even remarkably, it appears, at least so far, to have inhibited
survival are interwoven with the Earth system and its large-scale conflict between states that have plagued civi-
biosphere in a complex interplay of local, regional, and lizations from time immemorial. Health and material

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
standards of living for many have improved and more to more consumption, and the power relations, inequalities,
people live longer than at any time in history. Boundaries behaviours, and choices of urban dwellers shape land-
between developed and developing regions have become scapes and seascapes and their diversity around the world
blurred, and global economic activity is increasingly dis- (Seto et al. 2012a, b). There is growing evidence that urban
persed across production networks that connect areas accelerate evolutionary changes for species that play
metropolitan areas around the world (Coe et al. 2004; Liu important functional roles in communities and ecosystems
et al. 2015). (Alberti et al. 2017).
Now, there is ample evidence that the cumulative human In addition, essential features of the globalized world
culture has expanded to such an extent that it has become a like physical infrastructure, technological artefacts, novel
significant global force affecting the operation of the Earth substances, and associated social and technological net-
system and its biosphere at the planetary level (Steffen works have been developing extraordinarily fast. The total
et al. 2018). As a reflection of this unprecedented expan- weight of everything made by humans—from houses and
sion, a new geological epoch—the Anthropocene, the age bridges to computers and clothes—is about to exceed the
of mankind—has been proposed in the Geological Time mass of all living things on Earth (Elhacham et al. 2020).
Scale (AWG 2019). The extensive ‘‘technosphere’’ dimension underscores the
Work on anthropogenic biomes finds that more than novelty of the ongoing planetary changes, plays a signifi-
75% of Earth’s ice-free land is directly altered as a result of cant role in shaping global biosphere dynamics, and has
human activity, with nearly 90% of terrestrial net primary already left a deep imprint on the Earth system (Zalasie-
production and 80% of global tree cover under direct wicz et al. 2017).
human influence (Ellis and Ramankutty 2008). Similarly, The notion that humanity is external to the biosphere has
in the ocean, no area is unaffected by human influence and allowed for models in which technological progress is
a large fraction (41%) is strongly affected by multiple expected to enable humanity to enjoy ever-growing GDP
human impacts (Halpern et al. 2008). For example, oxy- and thus consumption. This view was comparatively
gen-minimum zones for life and oxygen concentrations in harmless, as long as the biosphere was sufficiently resilient
both the open ocean and coastal waters have been declining to supply the demands humanity made of it. This is no
since at least the middle of the twentieth century, as a longer the case, and it has far-reaching implications for
consequence of rising nutrient loads from human actions contemporary models of economic possibilities that many
coupled with warmer temperatures (Limburg et al. 2020). still work with and draw policy conclusions from (Das-
Just as on land, there has been a blue acceleration in the gupta and Ramanathan 2014; Dasgupta 2021).
ocean, with more than 50% of the vast ocean seabed
claimed by nations (Jouffray et al. 2020). The intertwined planet of people and nature
The human dominance is further reflected in the weight
of the current human population—10 times the weight of The Anthropocene is characterized by a tightly intercon-
all wild mammals. If we add the weight of livestock for nected world operating at high speeds with hyper-effi-
human use and consumption to the human weight, only 4% ciency in several dimensions. These dimensions include the
of the weight of mammals on Earth remain wild mammals. globalized food production and distribution system,
The weight of domesticated birds exceeds that of wild birds extensive trade and transport systems, strong connectivity
by about threefold (Bar-On et al. 2018). The human of financial and capital markets, internationalized supply
dimension has become a dominant force in shaping evo- and value chains, widespread movements of people, social
lution of all species on Earth. Through artificial selection innovations, development and exchange of technology, and
and controlled reproduction of crops, livestock, trees, and widespread communication capacities (Helbing 2013)
microorganisms, through varying levels of harvest pressure (Fig. 2).
and selection, through chemicals and pollution altering In the Anthropocene biosphere, systems of people and
life-histories of species, and by sculpting the new habitats nature are not just linked but intertwined, and intertwined
that blanket the planet, humans, directly and indirectly, across temporal and spatial scales (Reyers et al. 2018).
determine the constitution of species that succeed and fail Local events can escalate into global challenges, and local
(Jörgensen et al. 2019). places are shaped by global dynamics (Adger et al. 2009;
Humans are now primarily an urban species, with about Crona et al. 2015, 2016; Liu et al. 2016; Kummu et al.
55% of the population living in urban areas. By mid-cen- 2020). The tightly coupled human interactions of global-
tury, about 7 out of 10 people are expected to live in cities ization that allow for the continued flow of information,
and towns (UN DESA 2018). In terms of urban land area, capital, goods, services, and people, also create global
this is equivalent to building a city the size of New York systemic risk (Centeno et al. 2015; Galaz et al. 2017).
City every 8 days (Huang et al. 2019). Urbanization leads However, this interplay is not only global between people

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
Fig. 2 A snapshot of the interconnected globalized world, showing the human influence in terms of settlements, roads, railways, air routes,
shipping lanes, fishing efforts, submarine cables, and transmission lines (Credit: Globaı̈a). Reprinted with permission
and societies but co-evolving also with biosphere dynamics the boundary for our living conditions. The climate system
shaping the preconditions for human wellbeing and civi- is integral to all other components of the Earth system,
lizations (Jörgensen et al. 2018; Keys et al. 2019). For through heat exchange in the ocean, albedo dynamics of
example, extreme-weather and geopolitical events, inter- the ice sheets, carbon sinks in terrestrial ecosystems, cycles
acting with the dynamics of the food system (Cottrell et al. of nutrients and pollutants, and climate forcing through
2019), can spill over multiple sectors and create syn- evapotranspiration flows in the hydrological cycle and
chronous challenges among geographically disconnected greenhouse pollutants. Together these interactions in the
areas and rapidly move across countries and regions Earth system interplay with the heat exchange from the sun
(Rocha et al. 2018). The rise of antibiotic resistance, the and the return flow back to space, but also in significant
rapid spread of the corona-pandemic, or altered moisture ways with biosphere-climate feedbacks that either mitigate
recycling across regions expose the intertwined world. or amplify global warming. These global dynamics interact
Probabilities and consequences of the changes are not only with regional environmental systems (like ENSO or the
scale dependent, but also changing over time as a result monsoon system) that have innate patterns of climate
of human actions, where those actions can either exacer- variability and also interact with one another via telecon-
bate or mitigate the likelihood or consequences of a given nections (Steffen et al. 2020). The living organisms of the
event. planet’s ecosystems play a significant role in these complex
In the twenty-first century, people and planet are truly dynamics (Mace et al. 2014).
interwoven and coevolve, shaping the preconditions for Now, human-induced global warming alters the capacity
civilizations. Our own future on Earth, as part of the bio- of the ocean, forests, and other ecosystems in sequestering
sphere, is at stake. This new reality has major implications about half of the CO2 emissions, as well as storing large
for human wellbeing in the face of climate change, loss of amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG) in soils and peatlands
biodiversity, and their interplay, as elaborated in the next (Steffen et al. 2018). Increased emissions of GHG by
section. humans are creating severe climate shocks and extremes
already at 1.2° warming compared to pre-industrial levels
(WMO 2020). In addition, human homogenization and
CLIMATE CHANGE AND LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY simplification of landscapes and seascapes cause loss of
biosphere resilience, with subsequent erosion of the role of
Contemporary climate change and biodiversity loss are not the fabric of nature in generating ecosystem services (Diaz
isolated phenomena but symptoms of the massive expan- et al. 2018) and serving as insurance to shocks and surprise
sion of the human dimension into the Anthropocene. The and to tipping points and regime shifts (Nyström et al.
climate system plays a central role for life on Earth. It sets 2019).

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
Fig. 3 The Holocene epoch and Earth’s resilience. A) Vostok ice-core data, Antarctica, from the last 100 000 years in relation to human
migration and civilization. The red circle marks the last 11 000 years of the accommodating Holocene epoch. B) Global temperature the last 3
million years oscillating within ? 2 °C and -6 °C relative to pre-industrial temperature (the 0 line). Observations from ice-core and tree ring
proxy data in black and modelling results in blue reflecting interactions between the biosphere and the broader Earth system. Evidence suggests
that current levels of anthropogenic warming have forced the Earth system out of the Holocene climate conditions into the Anthropocene. There
is increasing consensus that pushing the Earth system to more than 2 °C warming compared to pre-industrial levels constitutes unknown terrain
for contemporary societies and a threat to civilization (Steffen et al. 2018). Figure 3A by W. Steffen, source and data from Petit et al. (1999) and
Oppenheimer (2004). Figure 3B adapted from Willeit et al., Sci. Adv. 2019; 5 : eaav7337. Ó The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive
licensee AAAS. Distributed under a CC BY 4.0 license
Climate change—stronger and faster than predicted being the warmest of any equivalent period on record
(WMO 2020). Already now at 1.2 °C warming compared
Earth has been oscillating between colder and warmer to pre-industrial levels, we appear to be moving out of the
periods over a million years (the entire Pleistocene), but the accommodating Holocene environment that allowed agri-
average mean temperature has never exceeded 2 °C (in- culture and complex human societies to develop (Steffen
terglacial) above or 6 °C below (deep ice age) the pre- et al. 2018) (Fig. 3a). Already within the coming 50 years,
industrial temperature on Earth (14 °C), reflecting the 1 to 3 billion people are projected to experience living
importance of feedbacks from the living biosphere as part conditions that are outside of the climate conditions that
of regulating the temperature dynamics of the Earth have served humanity well over the past 6000 years (Xu
(Willeit et al. 2019) (Fig. 3b). et al. 2020).
Human-induced global warming is unparalleled. For Currently, some 55% of global anthropogenic emissions
98% of the planet’s surface, the warmest period of the past causing global warming derive from the production of
2000 years occurred in the late twentieth century (Neukom energy and its use in buildings and transport. The
et al. 2019) and has steadily increased into the twenty-first remaining 45% comes from human emissions that arise
century with the average global temperature for 2015–2020 from the management of land and the production of

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
buildings, vehicles, electronics, clothes, food, packaging, intertwined world one change may lead to another, or that
and other goods and materials (Ellen MacArthur Founda- events can co-occur because they simply share the same
tion 2019). The food system itself accounts for about 25% driver (Rocha et al. 2018). Large-scale transitions can
of the emissions (Mbow et al. 2019). Human-driven land- unfold when a series of linked elements are all close to a
use change through agriculture, forestry, and other activi- tipping point, making it easier for one transition to set off
ties (Lambin and Meyfroidt 2011) causes about 14% of the the others like a chain reaction or domino effect (Scheffer
emissions (Friedlingstein et al. 2020). Cities account for et al. 2012; Lenton et al. 2019).
about 70% of CO2 emissions from final energy use and the With increased warming, humanity risks departing the
highest emitting 100 urban areas for 18% of the global glacier-interglacial dynamics of the past 2.6 million years
carbon footprint (Seto et al. 2014; Moran et al. 2018). (Burke et al. 2018). If efforts to constrain emissions fail,
About 70% of industrial greenhouse gas emissions are the global average temperature by 2100 is expected to
linked to 100 fossil-fuel producing companies (Griffin and increase 3–5 °C (IPCC 2014) above pre-industrial levels.
Hede 2017). Collectively, the top 10 emitting countries Although higher global temperatures have occurred in deep
account for three quarters of global GHG emissions, while geological time, living in a biosphere with a mean annual
the bottom 100 countries account for only 3.5% (WRI global temperature exceeding 2 °C of the pre-industrial
2020). As a consequence of the pandemic, global fossil average (Fig. 3) is largely unknown terrain for humanity
CO2 emission in 2020 decreased by about 7% compared to and certainly novel terrain for contemporary society.
2019 (Friedlingstein et al. 2020).
Climate change impacts are hitting people harder and The climate and the biosphere interplay
sooner than envisioned a decade ago (Diffenbaugh 2020).
This is especially true for extreme events, like heatwaves, The relation between climate and the biosphere is being
droughts, wildfires, extreme precipitation, floods, storms, profoundly altered and reshaped by human action. The total
and variations in their frequency, magnitude, and duration. amount of carbon stored in terrestrial ecosystems is huge,
The distribution and impacts of extreme events are often almost 60 times larger than the current annual emissions of
region specific (Turco et al. 2018; Yin et al. 2018). For global GHG (CO2 equivalents, 2017) by humans, and with
example, Europe has experienced several extreme heat the major part, about 70% (1500–2400 Gt C) found in soil
waves since 2000 and the number of heat waves, heavy (Ciais et al. 2013). The ocean holds a much larger carbon
downpours, and major hurricanes, and the strength of these pool, at about 38 000 Gt of carbon (Houghton 2007). Thus
events, has increased in the United States. The risk for far, terrestrial and marine ecosystems have served as
wildfires in Australia has increased by at least 30% since important sinks for carbon dioxide and thereby contribute
1900 as a result of anthropogenic climate change (van significantly to stabilizing the climate. At current global
Oldenborgh et al. 2020). The recent years of repeated average temperature, the ocean absorbs about 25% of
wildfires in the western U.S. and Canada have had devas- annual carbon emissions (Gruber et al. 2019) and absorbs
tating effects (McWethy et al. 2019). Extreme events have over 90% of the additional heat generated from those
the potential to widen existing inequalities within and emissions. Land-based ecosystems like forests, wetlands,
between countries and regions (UNDP 2019). In particular, and grasslands bind carbon dioxide through growth, and all
synchronous extremes are risky in a globally connected in all sequester close to 30% of anthropogenic CO2 emis-
world and may cause disruptions in global food production sions (Global Carbon Project 2019).
(Cottrell et al. 2019; Gaupp et al. 2020). Pandemics, like The biosphere’s climate stabilization is a critical
the COVID-19 outbreak and associated health responses, ecosystem service, or Earth system service, which cannot
intersect with climate hazards and are exacerbated by the be taken for granted. Recent research has shown that not
economic crisis and long-standing socioeconomic and only human land-use change but also climate impacts, like
racial disparities, both within countries and across regions extreme events and temperature change, increasingly
(Phillips et al. 2020). threaten carbon sinks. For example, the vast fires in Borneo
Some of these changes will happen continuously and in 1997 released an equivalent of 13–40% of the mean
gradually over time, while others take the form of more annual global carbon emissions from fossil fuels at that
sudden and surprising change (Cumming and Peterson time (Page et al. 2002; Folke et al. 2011). The devastating
2017). In addition, some are to some extent predictable, forest fires of 2019 in Australia, Indonesia, and the Ama-
others more uncertain and unexpected. An analysis of a zon triggered emissions equivalent to almost 40% of the
large database of social-ecological regime shifts (large annual global carbon sink on land and in the ocean (www.
shifts in the structure and function of social-ecological globalfiredata.org).
systems, transitions that may have substantial impacts on The Earth system contains several biophysical sub-sys-
human economies and societies), suggests that in the tems that can exist in multiple states and which contribute

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
Fig. 4 Tipping elements central in regulating the state of the planet, and identified interactions among them that, for humanity, could cause
serious cascading effects and even challenge planetary stability (based on Steffen et al. 2018; Lenton et al. 2019). In addition, ocean acidification,
deoxygenation, tropical cyclones, ocean heat waves, and sea level rise are challenging human wellbeing (Pörtner et al. 2019)
to the regulation of the state of the planet as a whole The living biosphere and Earth system dynamics
(Steffen et al. 2018). These so-called tipping elements, or
sleeping giants (Fig. 4), have been identified as critical in The interactions and diversity of organisms within and
maintaining the planet in favourable Holocene-like condi- across the planet’s ecosystems play critical roles in the
tions. These are now challenged by global warming and coevolution of the biosphere and the broader Earth system.
human actions, threatening to trigger self-reinforcing For example, major biomes like tropical and temperate
feedbacks and cascading effects, which could push the forests and their biological diversity transpire water vapour
Earth system towards a planetary threshold that, if crossed, that connects distant regions through precipitation (Glee-
could prevent stabilization of the climate at intermediate son et al. 2020a, b). Nearly a fifth of annual average pre-
global warming and cause escalating climate change along cipitation falling on land is from vegetation-regulated
a ‘‘Hothouse Earth’’ pathway even as human emissions are moisture recycling, with several places receiving nearly
reduced (Steffen et al. 2018). Observations find that nine of half their precipitation through this ecosystem service.
these known sleeping giants, thought to be reasonably Such water connections are critical for semi-arid regions
stable, are now undergoing large-scale changes already at reliant on rain-fed agricultural production and for water
current levels of warming, with possible domino effects to supply to major cities like Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro
come (Lenton et al. 2019). (Keys et al. 2016). As many as 19 megacities depend for
The significance of the challenge of holding global more than a third of their water supply on water vapour
warming in line with the Paris climate target is obvious. As from land, a dependence especially relevant during dry
a matter of fact, the challenge is broader than climate years (Keys et al. 2018). In some of the world’s largest
alone. It is about navigating towards a safe-operating space river basins, precipitation is influenced more strongly by
that depends on maintaining a high level of Earth resi- land-use change taking place outside than inside the river
lience. Incremental tweaking and marginal adjustments basin (Wang-Erlandsson et al. 2018).
will not suffice. Major transformations towards just and The biosphere contains life-supporting ecosystems sup-
sustainable futures are the bright way forward. plying essential ecosystem services that underpin human

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
Fig. 5 Biodiversity plays significant roles in biosphere resilience. Puma, Kay Pacha 2017, painting, and courtesy of Angela Leible
wellbeing and socioeconomic development. For example, species and populations are essential for ecosystem integ-
the biosphere strongly influences the chemical and physical rity and the generation of ecosystem services (Peterson
compositions of the atmosphere, and biodiversity con- et al. 1998; Hughes et al. 2007; Isbell et al. 2017). Varia-
tributes through its influence in generating and maintaining tion in responses of species performing the same function
soils, controlling pests, pollinating food crops, and partic- is crucial in resilience to shocks or extreme events (Chapin
ipating in biogeochemical cycles (Daily 1997). The ocean’s et al. 1997). Such ‘‘response diversity’’, serves as insurance
food webs, continental shelves, and estuaries support the for the capacity of ecosystems to regenerate, continue to
production of seafood, serve as a sink for greenhouse gases, develop after disturbance and support human wellbeing
maintain water quality, and hedge against unanticipated (Elmqvist et al. 2003).
ecosystem changes from natural or anthropogenic causes The Amazon rainforest is a prime example. Conserving
(Worm et al. 2006). These services represent critical life- a diversity of plants species may enable the Amazon forests
supporting functions for humanity (Odum 1989; Reyers to adjust to new climate conditions and protect the critical
and Selig 2020) and biological diversity plays fundamental carbon sink function (Sakschewski et al. 2016). Frequent
roles in these nature’s contributions to people (Diaz et al. extreme drought events have the potential to destabilize
2018). large parts of the Amazon forest especially when subsoil
moisture is low (Singh et al. 2020), but the risk of self-
Biodiversity performing vital roles in biosphere amplified forest loss is reduced with increasing hetero-
resilience geneity in the response of forest patches to reduced rainfall
(Zemp et al. 2017). However, continuous deforestation and
Organisms do not just exist and compete, they perform simultaneous warming are likely to push the forest towards
critical functions in ecosystem dynamics and in creating tipping points with wide-ranging implications (Hirota et al.
and providing social-ecological resilience (Folke et al. 2011; Staver et al. 2011; Lovejoy and Nobre 2018). Also,
2004; Hooper et al. 2005; Tilman et al. 2014) (Fig. 5). with greater climate variability, tree longevity is shortened,
Resilience refers to the capacity of a system to persist with thus, influencing carbon accumulation and the role of the
change, to continue to develop with ever changing envi- Amazon forest as a carbon sink (Brienen et al. 2015). A
ronments (Reyers et al. 2018). large-scale shift of the Amazon would cause major impacts
Biodiversity plays significant roles in buffering shocks on wellbeing far outside the Amazon basin through chan-
and extreme events, and in regime shift dynamics (Folke ges in precipitation and climate regulation, and by linking
et al. 2004). The diversity of functional groups and traits of with other tipping elements in the Earth system (Fig. 4).

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
Hence, the resilience of multifunctional ecosystems replacement by single high-yielding varieties (Heal et al.
across space and time, and in both aquatic and terrestrial 2004).
environments, depends on the contributions of many spe- The simplification and intensification of production
cies, and their distribution, redundancy, and richness at ecosystems and their tight connectivity with international
multitrophic levels performing critical functions in markets have yielded a global production ecosystem that
ecosystems and biosphere dynamics (Mori et al. 2013; is very efficient in delivering goods to markets, but
Nash et al. 2016; Soliveres et al. 2016; Frei et al. 2020). globally homogeneous, highly interconnected, and char-
Biodiversity and a resilient biosphere are a reflection of life acterized by weakened internal feedbacks that mask or
continuously being confronted with uncertainty and the dilute the signals of loss of ecosystem resilience to con-
unknown. Diversity builds and sustains insurance and sumers (Nyström et al. 2019; Ortiz et al. 2021). In addi-
keeps systems resilient to changing circumstances (Hen- tion, the global food trade network has over the past
dershot et al. 2020). 20 years become progressively delocalized as a result of
globalization (that is, modularity has been reduced) and as
Homogenization, hyper-connectivity, and critical connectivity and homogeneity increase, shocks that were
transitions previously contained within a geographical area or a
sector are becoming globally contagious and more
Conversion and degradation of habitats have caused global prevalent (Tamea et al. 2016; Tu et al. 2019; Kummu
biodiversity declines and defaunation (human-caused ani- et al. 2020).
mal loss), with extensive cascading effects in marine, ter- Homogenization reduces resilience, the capacity to live
restrial, and freshwater ecosystems as a result, and altered and develop with change and uncertainty, and therby the
ecosystem functions and services (Laliberte et al. 2010; diversity of ways in which species, people, sectors, and
Estes et al. 2011). Over the past 50 years of human institutions can respond to change as well as their potential
acceleration, the capacity of nature to support quality of to functionally complement each other (Biggs et al. 2012;
life has declined in 78% of the 18 categories of nature’s Grêt-Regamey et al. 2019; Nyström et al. 2019). In addi-
contributions to people considered by the Intergovern- tion, homogeneous landscapes lack the diversity of
mental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and ecosystem types for resilient responses when a single
Ecosystem Services (Diaz et al. 2018). homogeneous landscape patch, such as a production forest
Much of the Earth’s biosphere has been converted into or crop, is devastated by pathogens or declines in economic
production ecosystems, i.e. ecosystems simplified and value. In addition, such ecosystem simplification and
homogenized for the production of one or a few har- degradation increase the likelihood of disease emergence,
vestable species (Nyström et al. 2019). Urbanization is a including novel viruses (Myers and Patz 2009). In parallel,
force in homogenizing and altering biodiversity in land- people, places, cultures, and economies are increasingly
scapes and seascapes (Seto et al. 2012b), and over the past linked across geographical locations and socioeconomic
decade land-use change (Meyfroidt et al. 2018) accounted contexts, making people and planet intertwined at all
for nearly a quarter of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas scales.
emissions (Arneth et al. 2019). Evidence suggests that homogenization, simplification,
The increase in homogeneity worldwide denotes the intensification, strong connections, as well as suppression
establishment of a global standard food supply, which is of variance, increase the likelihood of regime shifts, or
relatively species rich at the national level, but species poor critical transitions with thresholds and tipping points
globally (Khoury et al. 2014). Globally, local varieties and (Scheffer et al. 2012; Carpenter et al. 2015). These shifts
breeds of domesticated plants and animals are disappearing may interact and cascade, thereby causing change at very
(Diaz et al. 2018). Land-use intensification homogenizes large scales with severe implications for the wellbeing of
biodiversity in local assemblages of species worldwide human societies (Hughes et al. 2013; Rocha et al. 2018).
(Newbold et al. 2018) and counteracts a positive associa- Comparison of the present extent of biosphere conversion
tion between species richness and dietary quality. It also with past global-scale regime shifts suggests that global-
affects ecosystem services and wellbeing in low- and scale biosphere regime shift is more than plausible (Bar-
middle-income countries (Lachat et al. 2018; Vang Ras- nosky et al. 2012). The biotic hallmark for each earlier
mussen et al. 2018). In much of the world more than half, biosphere regime shifts was pronounced change in global,
up to 90%, of locally adapted varieties of major crop regional, and local assemblages of species (Barnosky et al.
species (e.g. wheat and rice) have been lost due to 2012).

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
Fig. 6 The nine identified planetary boundaries. The green zone is the safe-operating space (below the boundary), yellow represents the zone of
uncertainty (increasing risk), and red is the high-risk zone. In these potentially dangerous zones of increasing risk, there are likely continental and
global tipping points for some of the boundaries, although not for all them. The planetary boundary itself lies at the inner heavy circle. A
proposed boundary does not represent a tipping point or a threshold but is placed upstream of it, that is, well before the risk of crossing a critical
threshold. The intent of this buffer between the boundary and a potential threshold in the dangerous zone is to allow society time to react to early
warning signs of approaching abrupt or risky change. Processes for which global-level boundaries are not quantified are represented by grey
wedges (adapted from Steffen et al. 2015). Reprinted with permission
Planetary boundaries and a safe-operating space framework, which delineates a Holocene-like state of the
for humanity Earth system, the state that has enabled civilizations to
emerge and flourish (Fig. 6). Four of the nine boundaries,
It is in the self-interest of humanity to avoid pushing including climate and biodiversity, are estimated to already
ecosystems or the entire Earth system across tipping points. have been transgressed. The framework provides a natural-
Therefore, a major challenge is to enhance biosphere science-based observation that human forcing has already,
resilience and work towards stabilizing the Earth system at the planetary scale, rapidly pushed the Earth system
and its biosphere in a state that, hopefully, is safe for away from the Holocene-like conditions and onto an
humanity to operate within, albeit a warmer state than the accelerating Anthropocene trajectory (Steffen et al. 2018).
Holocene and one with a human-dominated biosphere. In recent years, there have been several efforts to further
Clearly, the climatic system and the biological diversity investigate and deepen the understanding of planetary
and functional integrity of the biosphere, as well as their boundaries and the safe-operating space for humanity.
interplay, are foundational for cultivating a resilient Earth These include updates on the biodiversity boundary, the
system. freshwater boundary, the biogeochemical flows (Carpenter
Climate and biosphere integrity constitute the two fun- and Bennett 2011; de Vries et al. 2013; Mace et al. 2014;
damental dimensions of the Planetary Boundaries Newbold et al. 2016; Gleeson et al. 2020b), multiple

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
Fig. 7 Examples of pathways of interactions between inequality and the biosphere in intertwined systems of people and nature (adapted from
Hamann et al. 2018). Reprinted with permission
regime shifts and possible links between regional and Stabilizing the Earth system in a safe-operating space will
planetary tipping points (Anderies et al. 2013; Hughes et al. require transformative changes in many dimensions of
2013), regional perspectives on the framework (Häyhä human actions and relations (Westley et al. 2011; Sachs
et al. 2016; O’Neill et al. 2018), and creating safe-operat- et al. 2019).
ing spaces (Scheffer et al. 2015). Attempts to quantify
interactions between planetary boundaries suggest that
cascades and feedbacks predominantly amplify human INEQUALITY AND GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY
impacts on the Earth system and thereby shrink the safe-
operating space for human actions in the Anthropocene Inequality describes an unequal distribution of a scarce
(Lade et al. 2020). resource, benefit, or cost and does not necessarily represent
There are also propositions for integrating the planetary a normative statement. Inequity is a more normative term
boundaries framework with economic, social, and human that evokes an unfair or unjust distribution of privileges
dimensions (Raworth 2012; Dearing et al. 2014; Downing across society. There are complex interconnections
et al. 2019) as well as tackling the policy and governance between inequality, the biosphere, and global sustainability
challenges associated with the approach (Biermann et al. (Hamann et al. 2018) (Fig. 7) that go beyond unequal
2012; Galaz et al. 2012; Sterner et al. 2019; Pickering and distribution of income or wealth, like distributional,
Persson 2020; Engström et al. 2020). The global food recognitional, and procedural inequities (Leach et al.
system is also placed within the framework of the planetary 2018). Distributional equity refers to how different groups
boundaries (Gordon et al. 2017), like in the EAT-Lancet may have access to resources, and how costs, harms, and
Commission’s report on healthy diets from sustainable benefits are shared. Recognitional equity highlights the
food systems for nearly 10 billion people by 2050 (Willett ongoing struggle for recognition of a diversity of per-
et al. 2019). spectives and groups, e.g. referring to nationality, ethnicity,
In light of the profound challenges of navigating the or gender, whereas procedural equity focuses on how dif-
future of human societies towards a stabilized Earth state, it ferent groups and perspectives are able to engage in and
becomes clear that modest adjustments on current path- influence decision-making processes and outcomes (Leach
ways of societal development are not very likely to guide et al. 2018). Approaches to sustainability generally include
humanity into sustainable futures (Kates et al. 2012). some form of equality, universal prosperity, and poverty

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
alleviation. Global environmental change and unsustain- Gender, class, caste, and ethnic identities and relation-
able practices may exacerbate inequalities (Hamann et al. ships, and the specific social, economic and political
2018). Greater inequality may lead to weaker economic power, roles and responsibilities they entail, shape the
performance and cause economic instability (Stiglitz choices and decisions open to individuals and households
2012). Increasing income inequality may also lead to more in dealing with the climate and environmental risks they
societal tension and increase the odds of conflict (Durante face (Rao et al. 2020). Gender inequality has important
et al. 2017). reinforcing feedbacks with environmental change (Fortnam
et al. 2019) and has, for example, been shown to change
Rising inequality with shifts in tropical land use in Indonesia (Maharani et al.
2019) or with changes in levels of direct use of local
The majority of countries for which adequate data exist ecosystem services by households in South Africa (Ha-
have seen rising inequality in income and wealth over the mann et al. 2015). Climate change is projected to dispro-
past several decades (Piketty 2014). In the U.S., Europe, portionally influence disadvantaged groups, especially
and China, the top 10% of the population own 70% of the women, girls, and indigenous communities (Islam and
wealth, while the bottom 50% own only 2%. In the U.S., Winkel 2017).
the share of income going to the top 1% rose from around People with less agency and fewer resources at their
11% in 1980 to above 20% in 2016 (World Inequality disposal are more vulnerable to climate change (Althor
Report 2018), and the share of wealth of the top 0.1% more et al. 2016; Morton 2007) and to environmental shocks and
than tripled between 1978 and 2012, and is roughly equal extreme events such as floods and droughts (Hallegatte
to the share of wealth of the bottom 90% (Saez and Zuc- et al. 2016; Jachimowicz et al. 2017). The COVID-19
man 2016). Also, the wealthiest 1% of the world’s popu- pandemic has further exposed the inequality in vulnera-
lation have been responsible for more than twice as much bility to shocks among communities that lack the financial
carbon pollution as the poorest half of humanity (Kartha resources and essentials for a minimum standard of living,
et al. 2020). Seventy-five per cent of the world’s cities have feeding off existing inequalities and making them worse
higher levels of income inequalities than two decades ago, (Drefahl et al. 2020; Stiglitz 2020). There is significant
and the spatial concentration of low-income unskilled concern that climate-driven events exacerbate conflict
workers in segregated residential areas acts as a poverty because they affect economic insecurity which, in itself,
trap (UN-Habitat 2016). About 10% of the world popula- has been shown to be a major cause of violent conflict and
tion in 2015, or some 740 million people, were living in unrest (Mach et al. 2019; Ide et al. 2020).
extreme poverty (World Bank 2019). Vulnerability to climate change is also due to many low-
Inequality can impact the sense of community, common income countries’ location in low latitudes where further
purpose, and trust (Jachimowicz et al. 2017) and influences warming pushes these countries ever further away from
successful management of common pool resources in dif- optimal temperatures for climate-sensitive economic sec-
ferent ways (Baland et al. 2007). Inequality may give rise tors (King and Harrington 2018). Examples include coun-
to perceptions, behaviour, and social norms about status tries with high numbers of vulnerable, poor or marginalized
and wealth, and disparities in worth and cultural mem- people in climate-sensitive systems like deltas, semi-arid
bership between groups in a society—so-called ‘‘recogni- lands, and river basins dependent on glaciers and snowmelt
tion gaps’’ (Lamont 2018). (Conway et al. 2019). Changes to glaciers, snow and ice in
mountains will likely influence water availability for over a
Inequalities and the environment billion people downstream by mid-century (Pihl et al.
2019). Under future scenarios of land-use and climate
Greater inequality can lead to more rapid environmental change, up to 5 billion people face higher water pollution
degradation, because low incomes lead to low investment and insufficient pollination for nutrition, particularly in
in physical capital and education. Such situations often Africa and South Asia. Hundreds of millions of people face
cause excessive pressure and degradation of natural capital heightened coastal risk across Africa, Eurasia, and the
leading to declining incomes and further degradation in a Americas (Chaplin-Kramer et al. 2019).
downward spiral, a poverty trap (Bowles et al. 2006).
Furthermore, interventions that ignore nature and culture Ocean inequity
can reinforce poverty traps (Lade et al. 2017), and eco-
nomic and environmental shocks, food insecurity, and In the ocean, inequity manifests, for example, in skewed
climate change may force people back into poverty (lack of distribution of commercial fish catches, limited political
resources and capacities to fulfil basic needs) (Kates and power of small-scale fishers, particularly women and other
Dasgupta 2007; Wood et al. 2018). minority groups, limited engagement of developing nations

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
in high-seas activities and associated decision making, and 50% in the distribution of fisheries benefits among the
consolidated interests of global supply chains in a few world’s maritime countries (Sumaila et al. 2015; Green and
transnational corporations, with evidence of poor trans- Rudyk 2020).
parency and human rights abuses (Österblom et al. 2019).
The results of inequity include a loss of livelihoods and Inequities and sustainability
limited financial opportunities, increased vulnerabilities of
already marginalized groups, who are facing nutritional Alleviating inequality and poverty is a central objective of
and food security challenges, and negative impacts on the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals agreed to by
marine ecosystems (Harper et al. 2013; Hicks et al. 2019). national governments. Achieving global sustainability is
Coastal communities are sensitive to climate-induced another important set of objectives in the Sustainable
shifts in the distribution and abundance of fish stocks Development Goals. The relation between inequality and
crucial to their livelihoods and nutrition (Blasiak et al. sustainability is the outcome of this dynamics and not
2017). This accentuated sensitivity is coupled with com- simply of cause and effect, but rather unfolding in different
paratively low levels of adaptive capacity, as remote places, as experienced and understood by the people living
coastal communities often have limited access to educa- there. Supporting and enhancing the emergence of capac-
tion, health services and alternative livelihoods, all of ities for dealing with shocks and surprises as part of
which could buffer the projected negative impacts from strategies for learning and developing with change in the
climate change (Cinner et al. 2018). turbulent times of the Anthropocene will be central to
As a means to improve fish abundance for coastal confront inequality and advance wellbeing (Biggs et al.
communities of low-income nations, there have been sug- 2012; Clark and Harley 2020). Multiple inequities and
gestions of closing the high seas to fishing through groups sustainabilities will require diverse forms of responses,
of states that commit to a set of international rules. This attuned to diverse contexts (Leach et al 2018; Clark and
would not only slow the pace of overfishing, but would also Harley 2020) (Fig. 8) and framed by transformations
rebuild stocks that migrate into countries’ Exclusive Eco- towards global sustainability as embedded in the biosphere
nomic Zones (EEZs), which could reduce inequality by (Westley et al. 2011).
Fig. 8 Alternative social-ecological development pathways over time, navigated by efforts like the SDGs and emergent outcomes for equity and
sustainability, with an ‘‘equitable sustainability space’’ highlighted (adapted from Leach et al. 2018). Reprinted with permission

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
SOCIETAL TRANSFORMATION development on the ground (Brown 2016), support trans-

AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE formations of current food production and innovation
systems (Gordon et al. 2017; Costello et al. 2020), and
By transformation, we refer to the capacity to create fun- contribute to a shift towards carbon neutral (or even neg-
damentally new systems of human–environmental inter- ative) energy systems (Rockström et al. 2017).
actions and feedbacks when ecological, economic, or social The following categories of new technologies are
structures make the continuation of the existing system already having bearing on global sustainability: the diver-
untenable (Folke et al. 2010). It involves multiple ele- sity of existing and emerging renewable energy technolo-
ments, including agency, practices, behaviours, incentives, gies, like solar cells, hydrogen energy, wind generators, or
institutions, beliefs, values, and world views and their geothermal heating; technologies that remove greenhouse
leverage points at multiple levels (Abson et al. 2017; gases from the atmosphere; the digital transformation, with
Moore and Milkoreit 2020). Understanding transformation Artificial Intelligence (AI), satellite remote sensing, quan-
goes beyond a focus on the triggers, to unravelling the tum computing, and precision agriculture; synthetic biol-
capacities for reducing resilience of an undesired, status ogy, including biotechnology and genetic and molecular
quo, system, and nurturing and navigating the emergence engineering, by redesigning and using organisms to solve
of new, desired systems (Elmqvist et al. 2019); to confront problems in medicine, manufacturing and agriculture;
path-dependencies, build capacities for new shocks and mechanical engineering, like robotics and also nanotech-
risks, and shift towards sustainable pathways (Olsson et al. nology. Their development, as embedded in the larger
2017). social-ecological systems, should be connected to and
Here, we stress that technological change and social become part of ways forward when designing transforma-
innovation in relation to sustainability will need a deeper tive pathways towards sustainability within planetary
focus on intertwined social-ecological interactions and boundaries.
feedbacks of the Anthropocene, since that will be necessary As human pressures on the biosphere increase, so does
to understand and achieve large-scale changes towards the hope that rapid advances in AI (including automated
global sustainability. We start this section with the role of decision making, data mining, and predictive analytics) in
emerging technologies and social media in this context, combination with rapid progresses in sensor technology
followed by findings from social innovation and transfor- and robotics, will be able to increase society’s capacities to
mation research and with an emphasis on the significance detect, adapt, and respond to climate and environmental
of narratives of hope for shifting towards sustainable change without creating new vulnerabilities (Joppa 2017).
futures. Such technologies are applied in a number of research
fields related to the environment and climate change,
Emerging technologies and sustainability including environmental monitoring, conservation, and
‘‘green’’ urban planning (Hino et al. 2018; Ilieva and
Most likely, technological change such as information McPhearson 2018; Wearn et al. 2019; Reichstein et al.
technology, artificial intelligence, and synthetic biology 2019). While nascent in terms of both scale and impact,
will drastically change economies, human relations, social such technological ‘‘niche-innovations’’ have the potential
organization, culture and civilization, creating new to rapidly upscale and shape ecosystems and institutions in
unknown futures. However, technological change alone multiple geographies (Geels et al. 2017). Such innovations
will not lead to transformations towards sustainability. It have been claimed to be central for a ‘‘digital revolution for
could lead humanity in diverse directions, pleasant and sustainable development’’ (Sachs et al. 2019).
unpleasant ones, and with different social and environ- Applications of these technologies have effects that
mental impacts. For example, rapid advances in sequencing span beyond climate and environmental research and
technologies and bioinformatics have enabled exploration monitoring, and more efficient natural resource use. AI-
of the ocean genome, but the capacity to access and use supported recommender systems as an example, influence
sequence data is inequitably distributed among countries consumer choices already today (André et al. 2018).
and companies (Blasiak et al. 2018, 2020). The techno- Targeted attacks in social media by social bots, applica-
logical dimension of development has to be deliberately tions of computer algorithms that automatically produce
and strategically guided, to contribute to just and sustain- content and interact with humans on social media, ‘‘trying
able futures and guided how and by whom as a central to emulate and possibly alter their behavior‘‘ (Ferrara
challenge (Galaz 2014; van der Leeuw 2018). et al. 2016; Grinberg et al. 2019), also influence conver-
On the other hand, it is most unlikely that transforma- sations in social media about climate and environmental
tions to sustainability will happen without the deployment issues and affect institutions for deliberative democracy
of technologies that, e.g. help build resilience and (Dryzek et al. 2019).

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
So far, the technological changes to our social systems media has powered movements such as school strikes,
have not come about with the purpose of promoting global extinction rebellion, voluntary simplicity, bartering, flight
sustainability (van der Leeuw 2019). This remains true of shame, the eat-local movement and veganism to promote a
recent and emerging technologies, such as online social steadily rising global awareness of pressing issues that may
media and information technology, causing changes that ultimately shift social norms (Nyborg et al. 2016), trigger
are increasingly far-reaching, ambiguous, and largely reforms towards sustainability (Otto et al. 2020) and per-
unregulated (Del Vicario et al. 2016). For example, ‘‘online haps also towards wealth equalization at all institutional
social networks are highly dynamic systems that change as levels (Scheffer et al. 2017).
a result of numerous feedbacks between people and The combination of discontent and self-organization not
machines’’. Algorithms suggest connections, to which only promotes rebellion against the old way of doing
users respond, and the algorithms, trained to optimize user things, as in street protests, populist votes, radicalization,
experience, adapt to the responses. ‘‘Together, these and terrorism, but also catalyses the search for alternative
interactions and processes alter what information people ways, as in bartering and sharing platforms, or voluntary
see and how they view the world’’ (Bergstrom and Bak- simplicity and other lifestyle movements (Haenfler et al.
Coleman 2019). 2012; Carpenter et al. 2019).
Hence, applications of novel technologies stemming The rise of social media and technologies such as bots
from advancements in AI could at best be benevolent and and profiling has been explosive, and the mere rate of
lead to improved stewardship of landscapes, seascapes, change has made it difficult for society to keep pace
water, or climate dynamics, through improved monitoring (Haenfler et al. 2012). Crowd-sourced fact checking may
and interventions, as well as more effective resource use be combined with computer-assisted analyses and judge-
(Chaplin-Kramer et al. 2019). Negative impacts of novel ments from professionals (Hassan et al. 2019), and label-
technologies on vulnerable groups (Barocas et al. 2017) are ling quality of media sources ranging from internet fora to
also pertinent since they diffuse rapidly into society, or newspapers and television stations may alert users to the
when used in sectors with clear impacts on the climate, or risk of disinformation and heavy political bias (Pennycook
on land and ocean ecosystems. This issue needs to be taken and Rand 2019). With time, such approaches together with
seriously as technological changes influence decisions with legislation, best-practice agreements, and individual skills
very long-term climatic and biosphere consequences (Cave of judging the quality of sources may catch up to control
and Óhéigeartaigh 2019). some of the negative side-effects (Walter et al. 2019).
The emerging picture is that social media have become a
Social media and social change global catalyst for social change by facilitating shifts on
scales ranging from individual attitudes to broad social
The participatory nature of social media gives it a central norms and institutions. It remains unclear, however, whe-
role in shaping individual attitudes, feelings, and beha- ther this new ‘‘invisible hand’’ will move the world on
viours (Williams et al. 2015; Lazer et al. 2018), can more sustainable and just pathways. Can the global, fast
underpin large social mobilization and protests (Steinert- moving capacity for information sharing and knowledge
Threlkeld et al. 2015), and influence social norms and generation through social media help lead us towards a just
policy making (Barbier et al. 2018; Stewart et al. 2019). It world where future generations thrive within the limits of
is well known that dire warnings can lead to disconnect of our planet’s capacity?
the audience if it is not accompanied by a feasible per-
spective for action (Weber 2015). Social media changes Social innovation and transformation
our perception of the world, by promoting a sense of crisis
and unfairness. This happens as activist groups seek to Transformations towards sustainability in the Anthro-
muster support (Gerbaudo and Treré 2015) and lifestyle pocene cannot be achieved by adaptation alone, and cer-
movements seek to inspire alternative choices (Haenfler tainly not by incremental change only, but rather that more
et al. 2012). For instance, social media catalysed the Arab fundamental systemic transformations will be needed
spring among other things by depicting atrocities of the (Hackmann and St. Clair 2012; Kates et al. 2012; O’Brien
regime (Breuer et al. 2015), and veganism is promoted by 2012). Transformation implies fundamentally rewiring the
social media campaigns highlighting appalling animal system, its structure, functions, feedbacks, and properties
welfare issues (Haenfler et al. 2012). (Reyers et al. 2018). But, despite such changes, there is
On the worrying side, isolationism stimulated by social- hope for systemic transformations with dignity, respect and
media-boosted discontent may hamper global cooperation in democratic fashions (Olsson et al. 2017), in contrast to
needed to curb global warming, biodiversity loss, wealth large-scale disruptive or revolutionary societal transfor-
concentration, and other trends. On the other hand, social mations like those of earlier civilizations (van der Leeuw

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
2019). It will require trust building, cooperation, collective and Holling 2002). Crises or anticipated risks can trigger
action, and flexible institutions (Ostrom 2010; Westley people to experiment with new practices and alternative
et al. 2011). governance modes and key individuals, often referred to as
A characteristic feature of transformations is that change policy, institutional or moral entrepreneurs, mobilize and
across different system states (trajectories or pathways) is combine social networks in new ways, preparing the sys-
not predetermined but rather emerges through diverse tem for change (Folke et al. 2005; Westley et al. 2013;
interactions across scales and among diverse actors O’Brien 2015). The preparation phase seems particularly
(Westley et al. 2011). Therefore, the literature on trans- important in building capacity to transform rather than
formations towards sustainability emphasize framing and simply returning to the status quo and reinforcing existing
navigating transformations rather than controlling those. power structures following change. Bridging organizations
Work on socio-technical sustainability transitions, social- tend to emerge, within or with new institutions, connecting
ecological transformations, and social innovation provide governance levels and spatial and temporal scales (Cash
insights into these dynamics (Geels et al. 2017; Olsson et al. 2006; Hahn et al. 2006; Brondizio et al. 2009;
et al. 2017; Westley et al. 2017). Rathwell and Peterson 2012). In several cases, the broader
These literatures have illustrated the importance of social contexts provide an enabling environment for such
connectivity and cross-level interactions for understanding emergence, for example, through various incentive struc-
the role of technological and social innovation and trans- tures or legal frameworks. When a window opens, there is
formative systemic change. The work emphasizes the skilful navigation of change past thresholds or tipping
importance of fostering diverse forms of novelty and points and, thereafter, a focus on building resilience of the
innovations at the micro-level, supported by the creation of transformed system (Gelcich et al. 2010).
‘‘transformative spaces’’, shielded from the forces of In general, the resulting transformation goes beyond the
dominant system structures. These allow for experimenta- adoption of a new technology or a local social innovation
tion with new mental models, ideas, and practices that alone. Instead it includes a portfolio of actions like
could help shift societies onto more desirable pathways investment in new infrastructures, establishment of new
(Loorbach et al. 2017; Pereira et al. 2018a, b). The markets, changes in incentives, development of new social
examples of the ‘‘Seeds of a Good Anthropocene’’ project preferences, or adjustment of user practices. Furthermore,
reflect ongoing local experiments that, under the right transformations gain momentum when multiple innova-
conditions, could accelerate the adoption of pathways to tions are linked together, improving the functionality of
transformative change (Bennett et al. 2016). As multiple each and acting in combination to reconfigure systems
demands and stressors degrade the ocean, transformative (Geels et al. 2017; Westley et al. 2017).
change in ocean governance seems required, shifting cur- Successful social innovations are recognized by their
rent economic and social systems towards ocean steward- capacity to radically shift broad social institutions
ship, e.g. through incorporation of niche innovations within (economies, political philosophies, laws, practices, and
and across economic sectors and stakeholder communities cultural beliefs) that provide structure to social life. In
(Brodie Rudolph et al. 2020). addition, social innovations seldom unfold in a determin-
It has been shown that real-world transformations come istic manner, but with a kind of punctuated equilibrium,
about through the alignment of mutually reinforcing pro- first languishing and then accelerating at times of oppor-
cesses within and between multiple levels. For example, tunity or crisis. There is also the need for awareness of the
the alignment of ‘‘niche innovations’’ or ‘‘shadow net- shadow side of all innovation, the consequences of inter-
works’ (which differ radically from the dominant existing vention in a complex system (Holling et al. 1998; Ostrom
system but have been able to gain a foothold in particular 2007). This is unavoidable but manageable if caught early,
market niches or geographical areas) with change at but needs attention, particularly in times of rapid change
broader levels and scales can create rapid change. Both (Westley et al. 2017).
slow moving trends (e.g., demographics, ideologies, accu- Social innovation is currently underway in many
mulation of GHG) and sudden shocks (e.g. elections, domains linked to climate change, like renewable energy
economic crises, pandemics, extreme events) can start to (Geels et al. 2017) or agriculture (Pigford et al. 2018) and
weaken or disturb the existing social-ecological system and highlight the importance of innovations not only in science
create windows-of-opportunity for niche innovations—new and technology, but also in institutions, politics, and social
practices, governance systems, value orientations—to goals for sustainability. Substantial attention is also direc-
become rapidly dominant (Olsson et al. 2004, 2006; ted towards sustainability of the ocean, where policy
Chaffin and Gunderson 2016; Geels et al. 2017) (Fig. 9). makers, industries, and other stakeholders are increasingly
Hence, turbulent times may unlock gridlocks and traps engaged in collaboration (Österblom et al. 2017; Brodie
and open up space for innovation and novelty (Gunderson Rudolf et al. 2020; UNGC 2020) and innovations

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
Fig. 9 The transformation process. A social innovation, a seed, matures to the extent that the initiative becomes prepared for change. And when
change happens, when the window-of-opportunity unlocks at broader levels of governance, often in relation to a shock or disturbance, the new
initiative can be skilfully navigated through the window and transitioned into a new development pathway, making it possible to transform the
governance system and start building resilience of the new situation and taking it to scale (based on Olsson et al. 2004, Geels et al. 2002 and
adapted from Pereira et al. 2018b). Reprinted with permission
(McCauley et al. 2016; Blasiak et al. 2018; Costello et al. changes unfold as part of cultural evolution, which needs
2020), aimed to create new incentives (Lubchenco et al. attention as urgently as the decarbonization of our econ-
2016; Jouffray et al. 2019; Sumaila et al. 2020) for action. omy (Waring et al. 2015; Creanza et al. 2017; Jörgensen
However, for these to have transformative impact, shifts in et al. 2019).
cultural repertoires (schemas, frames, narratives, scripts,
and boundaries that actors draw on in social situations) Narratives of action for the future
(Lamont et al. 2017) similar to those that accelerated the
anti-smoking movement and the LGBTQ movement need Social innovation and transformation require an individual
to occur (Marshall et al. 2012; Moore et al. 2015; Nyborg and collective attention on the future. There are many
et al. 2016). documented obstacles to such future focus, from cognitive
There are suggestions for social tipping interventions to myopia to present-biased individual and institutional
activate large-scale systemic shifts through, for example, incentives and norms (Weber and Johnson 2016; Weber
rapidly spreading of technologies, shifts in social norms 2017, 2020). Choice architecture provides tools that reduce
and behaviors, or structural reorganization of sectors, cor- status-quo bias and encourage more foresightful decisions
porations, and societies (Folke et al. 2019; Otto et al. in specific circumstances (Yoeli et al. 2017), but rapid and
2020). There are signs that such shifts are underway in systemic change will require more fundamental shifts in
western cultures, a desire for fundamental change towards narratives at a collective level (Lubchenco and Gaines
a more sustainable way of life (Wibeck et al. 2019) aided 2019).
by social movements such as the youth-led Extinction Narratives are ways of presenting or understanding a
Rebellion, as well as a strong move to more healthy and situation or series of events that reflects and promotes a
sustainable diets (Willet et al. 2019). Again, all these particular point of view or set of values. Narratives can

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
serve as meaning-making devices, provide actors with interpretive background against which individuals position
confidence to act and coordinate action. They are of sig- their own acts and those of others (Lamont et al. 2017).
nificance in shaping and anchoring worldviews, identities, Narratives of hope as cultural scripts are more likely to
and social interactions (van der Leeuw 2020). become widely shared if they offer possible course of
Narratives of hope have proven essential for social action, something that reasonable people can aspire to.
resilience (Lamont 2019). Social resilience refers to the Such sharing bolsters people’s sense of agency, the per-
capacity of individuals, groups, communities, and nations ception that they can have an impact on the world and on
‘‘to secure favourable outcomes (material, symbolic, their own lives that they can actually achieve what is
emotional) under new circumstances and when necessary offered to them (Lamont et al. 2017). In contrast to
by new means, even when this entails significant modifi- doomsday or climate-denying narratives, these scripts feed
cations to behaviour or to the social frameworks that a sense of active agency. Such ‘‘fictional expectations’’,
structure and give meaning to behaviour’’ (Hall and anchored in narratives that are continually adapted, are at
Lamont 2012). the core of market dynamics confronted with an uncertain
Transforming towards sustainable futures will require future affecting money and credit, investment, innovation,
broadening cultural membership by promoting new narra- and consumption (Beckert 2016).
tives that resonate, inspire, and provide hope centred on a Narratives of hope represent ideas about ’’imagined
plurality of criteria of worth and social inclusion. Here, we futures‘‘ or alternative ways of visualizing and conceptu-
are concerned with the challenge of motivating a collective alizing what has yet to happen and motivate action towards
recognition of our interdependence with the biosphere new development pathways (Moore and Milkoreit 2020).
(Schill et al. 2019) and economic and political action based As they circulate and become more widely shared, such
on that recognition. imagined futures have the potential to foster pre-
Collective conceptions of the future have many aspects. dictable behaviours, and stimulate the emergence of insti-
They include (1) whether the future is conceived as near or tutions, investments, new laws, and regulations. Therefore,
far and is understood in terms of long, medium and short- decisions under uncertainty are not only technical problems
term rewards; (2) what is likely and possible and how easily dealt with by rational calculation but are also a
contingent these outcomes are; (3) whether the future will function of the creative elements of decision-making
be good or bad; (4) how much agency individuals have on (Beckert 2016).
various aspects of their individual and collective future There is a rich literature on scenarios for sustainable
(concerning for instance, politics, societal orientation, futures, narratives articulating multiple alternative futures
personal and professional life; (5) who can influence the in relation to critical uncertainties, increasingly emphasiz-
collective future (e.g., the role of the state policies and ing new forms of governance, technology as a bridge
various societal forces in shaping them); (6) whether the between people and the deep reconnection of humanity to
future is conceived as a cyclical or as a linear progression; the biosphere, and engaging diverse stakeholder in partic-
(7) how stable peoples’ conceptions of the future are and ipatory processes as part of the scenario work (Carpenter
how they are influenced by events (terrorist attacks, et al. 2006; Bennett et al. 2016). The implication of
recessions, pandemics); and (8) whether aspirations are inherent unpredictability is that transformations towards
concealed or made public. sustainable and just futures can realistically be pursued
Behind these various issues, one finds other basic con- only through strategies that not only attend to the dynamics
ceptions about agency (to what extent are individuals of the system, but also nurture our collective capacity to
master of their fate), the impact of networks (to what extent guide development pathways in a dynamic, adaptive, and
is fate influenced by peers, family, and others), the impact reflexive manner (Clark and Harley 2020; Freeman et al.
of social structure (what is the impact of class, race, gen- 2020). Rather than striving to attain some particular future
der, place of origin) on where we end up, and how much it calls for a system of guided self-organization. It involves
does our environment (segregation, resource availability, anticipating and imagining futures and behaving and acting
environmental conditions) influence our opportunities. on those in a manner that does not lead to loss of oppor-
Therefore, it is important to remember that, although tunities to live with changing circumstances, or even better
individuals play essential roles in narratives of hope, such enhances those opportunities, i.e. builds resilience for
images of the future are seldom creations of individuals complexity and change (Berkes et al. 2003).
alone but shaped by many cultural intermediaries working In order to better understand the complex dynamics of
in the media, in education, in politics, in social movements, the Anthropocene and uncertain futures, work is now
and in other institutions. emerging on human behaviour as part of complex adaptive
Cultural scripts represent commonly held assumptions systems (Levin et al. 2013), like anticipatory behaviour
about social interaction, which serve as a kind of (using the future in actual decision processes), or capturing

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
behaviour as both ‘‘enculturated’’ and ‘‘enearthed‘‘ and co- Biosphere stewardship incorporates economic, social,
evolving with socio-cultural and biophysical contexts and cultural dimensions with the purpose of safeguarding
(Boyd et al. 2015; Waring et al. 2015; Poli 2017; Merçon the resilience of the biosphere for human wellbeing and
et al. 2019; Schill et al. 2019; Schlüter et al. 2019; Haider fostering the sustainability of a rapidly changing planet.
et al. 2021), illustrating that cultural transmission and Stewardship is an active shaping of social-ecological
evolution can be both continuous and abrupt (Creanza et al. change that integrates reducing vulnerability to expected
2017). changes, fostering resilience to sustain desirable conditions
Narratives of hope for transformations towards sustain- in the face of the unknown and unexpected, and trans-
able futures are in demand. Clearly, technological change forming from undesirable pathways of development when
plays a central role in any societal transformation. Tech- opportunities emerge (Chapin et al. 2010). It involves
nological change has been instrumental in globalization caring for, looking after, and cultivating a sense of
and will be instrumental for global sustainability. No belonging in the biosphere, ranging from people and
doubt, the new era of technological breakthroughs will environments locally to the planet as a whole (Enqvist et al.
radically change the structure and operation of societies 2018; Chapin 2020; Plummer et al. 2020).
and cultures. But, as has been made clear here, the recipe Such stewardship is not a top-down approach forced on
for sustainable futures also concerns cultural transforma- people, nor solely a bottom-up approach. It is a learning-
tions that guide technological change in support of a resi- based process with a clear direction, a clear vision,
lient biosphere; that reconnect development to the engaging people to collaborate and innovate across levels
biosphere foundation. and scales as integral parts of the systems they govern
(Tengö et al. 2014; Clark et al. 2016; Norström et al. 2020).
Here, we focus on biosphere stewardship in relation to
BIOSPHERE STEWARDSHIP FOR PROSPERITY climate change, biodiversity, and transformations for sus-
tainable futures.
Transformation towards sustainability in the Anthropocene
has at least three systemic dimensions. First, it involves a From emission reductions alone to biosphere
shift in human behaviour away from degrading the life- stewardship
support foundation of societal development. Second, it
requires management and governance of human actions as Global sustainability involves shifting into a renewable
intertwined and embedded within the biosphere and the energy-based economy of low waste and greater circularity
broader Earth system. Third, it involves enhancing the within a broader value foundation. Market-driven progress
capacity to live and develop with change, in the face of combined with technological change certainly plays an
complexity and true uncertainty, that is, resilience-building important role in dematerialization (Schmidheiny 1992;
strategies to persist, adapt, or transform. For major path- McAfee 2019) but does not automatically redirect the
ways for such a transformation are presented in Box 2. economy towards sustainable futures. Public awareness,
responsible governments, and international collaborations
BOX 2 Four major pathwys towards global are needed for viable economic developments, acknowl-
sustainability edging that people, nations, and the global economy are
intertwined with the biosphere and a global force in
1. Recognize and act on the fact that societal devel- shaping its dynamics.
opment is embedded in and critically dependent Since climate change is not an isolated phenomenon but
on the biosphere and the broader Earth system for a consequence of the recent accelerating expansion of
prosperity and wellbeing. human activities on Earth, the needed changes concern
2. Create incentives and design policies that enable social organization and dynamics influencing the emissions
societies to collaborate towards just and sustain- of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, technolo-
able futures within planetary boundaries. gies, and policies for reducing such emissions, and various
3. Transform the current pathways of social, eco- approaches for carbon capture and storage. However, to
nomic, cultural development into stewardship of reduce the effects of climate change, it will not be suffi-
human actions that enhance the resilience of the cient to remove emissions only. The resilience of the bio-
biosphere. sphere and the Earth system needs to be regenerated and
4. Make active use of emerging and converging enhanced (Nyström et al. 2019). This includes governance
technologies for enabling the societal stewardship of critical biosphere processes linked to climate change,
transformation. such as in agriculture, forestry, and the ocean. In addition,
guarding and enhancing biodiversity will help us live with

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
Fig. 10 A Roadmap for Rapid Decarbonization—without deep emissions cuts the world takes a high-risk strategy (currently the default strategy)
of over-reliance on risky negative emissions technologies in the near future. Avoiding this trap means cutting emissions by half every decade—
the Carbon Law trajectory. Meeting the Paris Agreement goals will require bending the global curve of CO2 emissions by 2020 and reaching net-
zero emissions by 2050. It furthermore depends on rising anthropogenic carbon sinks, by transitioning world agriculture from a major carbon
source (red) to become a major carbon sink by the 2nd half of this century, carbon sinks from bioenergy and other forms of carbon capture and
storage (BECCS), engineering (grey) and land use (light blue), as well as sustained biosphere carbon sinks, to stabilize global temperatures.
Green represents natural carbon sinks, which will shrink as emissions decrease (adapted from Rockström et al. 2017). Reprinted with permission
climate change, mitigating climate change by storing and existence of connections between finance actors, capital
sequestering carbon in ecosystems, and building resilience markets, and the tipping elements of tropical and boreal
and adaptive capacity to the inevitable effects of forests has also gained attention and needs to be acted upon
unavoidable climate change (Dasgupta 2021). in policy and practice (Galaz et al. 2018).
The global pandemic caused a sharp fall in CO2 emis- Furthermore, ecosystem restoration has the potential to
sions in 2020 (Le Quéré et al. 2020), while the cumulative sequester large amounts of carbon dioxide from the
emissions continue to rise (Friedlingstein et al. 2020). The atmosphere. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmo-
fall was not caused by a long-term structural economic sphere derived from destroyed and degraded land is
shift so it is unlikely to persist without strong government roughly equal to the carbon that remains in ecosystems on
intervention. Political action is emerging from major land (about 450 billion tonnes of carbon) (Erb et al. 2018).
nations and regions and on net-zero GHG emissions within The amount of degraded lands in the world is vast, and
decades. Shifts towards renewable energy are taking place restoring their productivity, biodiversity, and ecosystem
in diverse sectors. Carbon pricing through taxes, tariffs, services could help keep global temperature increases
tradeable permits, as well as removal of fossil-fuel subsi- within acceptable levels (Lovejoy and Hannah 2018). It has
dies and incentives for renewable energy and carbon been estimated that nature-based solutions on land (from
sequestration (e.g. CCS techniques) are on the table and agriculture to reforestation and afforestation) have the
increasingly implemented. There are substantial material potential to provide over 30% of the emission reductions
and emission gains to be made from altered consumption needed by 2050 to keep global temperature increases to not
patterns, infrastructure changes, and shifts towards a cir- more than 2 °C (Griscom et al. 2017; Roe et al. 2019).
cular economy. Voluntary climate action among some There is scope for new policies and practices for nature-
large corporations is emerging (Vandenbergh and Gilligan based solutions (Kremen and Merenlender 2018; Diaz et al.
2017). There is general agreement that the pace of these 2018). These solutions will require shifts in governance
promising changes must rapidly increase in order to meet towards active stewardship of water and ecosystem
the Paris climate target (Fig. 10). dynamics and processes across landscapes, precipitation
In addition, active biosphere stewardship of critical sheds, and seascapes (Österblom et al. 2017; Plummer et al.
tipping elements and carbon sinks, as in forests, agricul- 2020), reconfiguring nation state governance, empowering
tural land, savannas, wetlands, and marine ecosystems is the commons through justice, equity and knowledge, and
crucial to avoid the risk of runaway climate change (Stef- making ownership regenerative by integrating rights with
fen et al. 2018). Such stewardship involves protecting, responsibilities (Brodie Rudolph et al. 2020). Also, the so-
sustaining, restoring, and enhancing such sinks. The called ‘‘social tipping interventions’’ towards biosphere

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
stewardship have the potential to activate contagious pro- and future shocks under conditions of deep uncertainty
cesses of rapidly spreading technologies, behaviors, social (Polasky et al. 2011). Resilience provides capacities for
norms, and structural reorganization, where current pat- novelty and innovation in times of change, to turn crises
terns can be disrupted and lead to fast reduction in into opportunities for not only adapting, but also trans-
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (Otto et al. 2020). forming into sustainable futures (Folke et al. 2016).
The window of opportunity for such shifts may emerge in The immediate future will require capacities to confront
times of turbulence and social discontent with the status challenges that we know we know little about (Kates and
quo (Carpenter et al. 2019). Creating conditions for pro- Clark 1996). Given the global connectivity of environ-
cesses of deliberate democracy may guide such transfor- mental, social, and economic systems, there is no scale at
mative change (Dryzek et al. 2019). which resource pooling or trade can be used to hedge
against all fluctuations at smaller scales. This begs the
Resilience and biosphere stewardship question of what types of investments may lead to a gen-
eralized capacity to develop with a wide range of potential
Societal development needs to strengthen biosphere and unknown events (Polasky et al. 2011). One strategy is
capacity for dealing with extreme events, both climate to invest in global public goods common to all systems,
driven and as a consequence of a tightly coupled and e.g., education, capacity to learn and collaborate across
complex globalized world in deep interplay with the rest of sectors, multi-scale governance structures that enable sys-
the biosphere (Helbing 2013; Reyers et al. 2018). For tems to better detect changes and nimbly address problems
example, the challenge of policy and practice in satisfying by reconfiguring themselves through transformative
demands for food, water and other critical ecosystem ser- change. Such strategies, often referred to as building
vices will most likely be set by the potential consequences ‘‘general resilience’’, easily erode if not actively supported
of the emergent risk panorama and its consequences, rather (Biggs et al. 2012; Carpenter et al. 2012; Quinlan et al.
than hard upper limits to production per se (Cottrell et al. 2015). General resilience is critical for keeping options
2019; Nyström et al. 2019; Xu et al. 2020). alive to face an uncertain turbulent world (Walker et al.
In this sense, a resilience approach to biosphere stew- 2009; Elmqvist et al. 2019).
ardship becomes significant. Such an approach is very
different from those who understand resilience as return to Collaborating with the biosphere
the status quo, to recover to business-as-usual. Resilience
in relation to stewardship of complex adaptive systems Clearly, a shift in perspective and action is needed (Fig. 11)
concerns capacities to live with changing circumstances, that includes extending management and governance from
slow or abrupt, predictable or surprising. It becomes the focus on producing food, fibre, and timber in simplified
especially relevant for dealing with the uncertain and ecosystems to rebuilding and strengthening resilience
unknown and is in stark contrast to strategies that support through investing in portfolios of ecosystem services for
efficiency and effectiveness for short term gain at the human wellbeing in diversity-rich social-ecological sys-
expense of redundancy and diversity. Such strategies may tems (Reyers et al. 2013; Bennett et al. 2015; Isbell et al.
work under relatively stable and predictable conditions but, 2017).
as stressed here, will create vulnerability in periods of rapid Numerous activities protecting, restoring, and enhancing
change, during turbulent times, and are ill-suited to con- diversity are taking place in this direction ranging from
front the unknown (Carpenter et al. 2009; Walker et al. traditional societies, local stewards of wildlife habitats,
2009). Financial crises and pandemics serve as real-world marine systems, and urban areas, to numerous NGOs,
examples of such vulnerabilities and make explicit the companies and enterprises, and various levels of govern-
tension between connectivity and modularity in complex ment, to international collaborations, agreements, and
adaptive systems (Levin 1999). conventions (Barthel et al. 2005; Forbes et al. 2009; Ray-
In contrast, intertwined systems of people and nature mond et al. 2010; Andersson et al. 2014; Barrett 2016;
characterized by resilience will have the capacity, whether Brondizio and Le Tourneau 2016; Österblom et al. 2017;
through strategies like portfolio management, polycentric Barbier et al. 2018; Bennett et al. 2018).
institutions, or building trust and nurturing diversity Examples include widespread use of marine protected
(Costanza et al. 2000; Ostrom 2010; Biggs et al. 2012; areas from local places to marine spatial planning to pro-
Carpenter et al. 2012), to confront turbulent times and the posals for protecting the open ocean, enhancing marine
unknown. Policy decisions will no longer be the result of biodiversity, rebuilding fisheries, mitigating climate
optimization algorithms that presuppose quantifiable change, and shifting towards ocean stewardship (Worm
uncertainty, but employ decision-making procedures that et al. 2009; Sumaila et al. 2015; Lubchenco and Grorud-
iteratively identify policy options most robust to present Colvert 2015; Lubchenco et al. 2016; Sala et al. 2016;

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
Fig. 11 Reconfiguring the human–nature relationship over time (adapted from Mace 2014). Reprinted with permission
Gaines et al. 2018; Tittensor et al. 2019; Cinner et al. 2020; portfolio of options for sustainable development in times of
Duarte et al. 2020; Brodie Rudolph et al. 2020). The latter change. Stewardship shifts focus from commodity to
is the focus of the High Level Panel for a Sustainable redundancy to response diversity for dealing with change
Ocean Economy, with 14 heads of state and more than 250 (Elmqvist et al. 2003; Grêt-Regamey et al. 2019; Dasgupta
scientists engaged. They aim to stimulate transformative 2021).
change for the ocean by committing to sustainably Clearly, the economic contributions of biodiversity are
managing 100% of their own waters by 2030 (Stuchtey highly significant as reflected in the many efforts to expose
et al. 2020). and capture economic values of biodiversity and ecosystem
There are major restoration programmes of forests, services (Daily et al. 2000; Sukhdev et al. 2010; Kinzig
wetlands, and abandoned and degraded lands and even et al. 2011; Costanza et al. 2014; Naeem et al. 2015;
revival of wildlife and rewilding of nature (Perino et al. Barbier et al. 2018; Dasgupta 2021). Inclusive (or genuine)
2019). Other efforts include ‘‘working-lands conservation’’ wealth aims at capturing the aggregate value of natural,
like agroforestry, silvopasture, diversified farming, and human, and social capital assets to provide a comprehen-
ecosystem-based forest management, enhancing liveli- sive, long-term foundation for human wellbeing (Dasgupta
hoods and food security (Kremen and Merenlender 2018). and Mäler 2000; Polasky et al. 2015). Inclusive wealth
The world’s ecosystems can be seen as essential capital provides a basis for designing incentives for more sus-
assets, if well managed, their lands, waters, and biodiver- tainable market transactions (Dasgupta 2014; Clark and
sity yield a flow of vital life-support services (Daily et al. Harley 2020).
2009). Investing in natural capital has become a core Also, the role of the cultural context is fundamental
strategy of agencies and major nations, like China, for (Diaz et al. 2018) and biocultural diversity, and coevolu-
wellbeing and sustainability, providing greater resilience to tion of people and nature is gaining ground as a means to
climate change (Guerry et al. 2015; Ouyang et al. 2016). It understand dynamically changing social-ecological rela-
involves combining science, technology, and partnerships tions (Barthel et al. 2013; Merçon et al. 2019; Haider et al.
to develop nature-based solutions and enable informed 2019). Broad coalitions among citizens, businesses, non-
decisions for people and nature to thrive and invest in green profits, and government agencies have the power to trans-
growth (Mandle et al. 2019). form how we view and act on biosphere stewardship and
There are several examples of adaptive management and build Earth resilience. Science has an important new role to
adaptive governance systems that have transformed social- play here as honest broker, engaging in evidence-informed
ecological dynamics of landscapes and seascapes into action, and coproduction of knowledge in collaboration
biosphere stewardship (Chaffin et al. 2014; Schultz et al. with practice, policy, and business (Reyers et al. 2015;
2015; Walker 2019; Plummer et al. 2020). Stewardship of Wyborn et al. 2019; Norström et al. 2020).
diversity as a critical feature in resilience building is about In this context, work identifying leverage points for
reducing vulnerability to change and multiplying the anticipated and deliberate transformational change towards

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
Fig. 12 Collaborative implementation of priority interventions (levers) targeting key points of intervention (leverage points representing major
indirect drivers) could enable transformative change from current trends towards more sustainable ones. Effectively addressing these levers and
leverage points requires innovative governance approaches and organizing the process around nexuses, representing closely interdependent and
complementary goals (adapted from Diaz et al. 2018). Reprinted with permission
sustainability is gaining ground, centred on reconnecting private sector alone (Österblom et al. 2015; Barbier et al.
people to nature, restructuring power and institutions, and 2018; Blasiak et al. 2018; Galaz et al. 2018; Folke et al.
rethinking how knowledge is created and used in pursuit of 2019; Jouffray et al. 2019).
sustainability (Abson et al. 2017; Fischer and Riechers The rapid acceleration of current Earth system changes
2019). Such actions range from direct engagements provides new motivations for action. Climate change is no
between scientists and local communities (Tengö et al. longer a vague threat to some distant future generation but
2014) or through the delivery of scientific knowledge and an environmental, economic, and social disruption that
method into multi-stakeholder arenas, such as boundary or today’s youth, communities, corporations, and govern-
bridging organizations (Cash et al. 2003; Hahn et al. 2006; ments are increasingly experiencing. This provides both
Crona and Parker 2012) where it can provide a basis for ethical and selfish motivations for individuals and institu-
learning and be translated into international negotiations tions to launch transformative actions that shape their
(Biermann and Pattberg 2008; Galaz et al. 2016; Tengö futures rather than simply reacting to crises as they emerge.
et al. 2017). It includes efforts to accelerate positive Shaping the future requires active stewardship for regen-
transformations by identifying powerful actors, like finan- erating and strengthening the resilience of the biosphere.
cial investors or transnational corporations, and articulating Given the urgency of the situation and the critical
key domains with which these actors need to engage in challenge of stabilizing the Earth system in Holocene-like
order to enable biosphere stewardship (Österblom et al. conditions, the pace of current actions has to rapidly
2017; Galaz et al. 2018; Folke et al. 2019; Jouffray et al. increase and expand to support a transformation towards
2019). The International science-policy platform for bio- active stewardship of human actions in concert with the
diversity and ecosystem services (IPBES), an international biosphere foundation. It will require reform of critical
body for biodiversity similar to the IPCC for the climate, social, economic, political, and cultural dimensions (Tallis
has proposed key features for enabling transformational et al. 2018; Diaz et al. 2018; Barrett et al. 2020).
change (Fig. 12). These efforts serve an increasingly
important space for scientists to engage in, helping hold
corporations accountable, stimulating them to take on CONCLUDING REMARKS
responsibility for the planet and develop leadership in
sustainability. Such science-business engagement will The success of social organization into civilizations and
become increasingly important to ensure that companies’ more recently into a globalized world has been impressive
sustainability agendas are framed by science rather than the and highly efficient. It has been supported by a resilient

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
biosphere and a hospitable climate. Now, in the Anthro- humanity and the rest of the living world for the next
pocene, a continuous expansion mimicking the develop- millennium and beyond.
ment pathways of the past century is not a viable option for There is scope for changing the course of history into
shifting towards sustainable futures. sustainable pathways. There is urgent need for people,
Humanity is embedded within, intertwined with, and economies, societies and cultures to actively start govern-
dependent upon the living biosphere. Humanity has ing nature’s contributions to wellbeing and building a
become a global force shaping the operation and future of resilient biosphere for future generations. It is high time to
the biosphere and the broader Earth system. Climate reconnect development to the Earth system foundation
change and loss of biodiversity are symptoms of the situ- through active stewardship of human actions into pros-
ation. The accelerating expansion of human activities has perous futures within planetary boundaries.
eroded biosphere and Earth system resilience and is now
challenging human wellbeing, prosperity, and possibly Acknowledgements We dedicate this article to our late colleague
and friend Paul Crutzen, a pioneer in clarifying the human global
even the persistence of societies and civilizations. imprint on planet Earth and who coined the concept of the Anthro-
The expansion has led to hyper-connectivity, homoge- pocene. Work with this White Paper was supported by the Kjell and
nization, and vulnerability in times of change, in contrast to Märta Beijer Foundation, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg
modularity, redundancy, and resilience to be able to live Foundation, and the Erling-Persson Family Foundation. Figures by J.
Lokrantz/Azote unless else stated.
with changing circumstances. In the Anthropocene,
humanity is confronted with turbulent times and with new Author contributions CF led the design, development and writing of
intertwined dynamics of people and planet where fast and the article with text contributions by SP, JR, VG, FW, ML, MS, and
slow change interplay in unexperienced and unpre- HÖ. All authors provided input, wrote, and commented on the
dictable ways. This is becoming the new normal. manuscript.
Our future on our planet will be determined by our
Funding Open access funding provided by Stockholm University.
ability to keep global warming well below 2 °C and foster
the resilience of the living biosphere. A pervasive thread in Conflicts of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interests.
science is that building resilient societies, ecosystems, and
ultimately the health of the entire Earth system hinges on Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
supporting, restoring and regenerating diversity in inter- adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as
twined social and ecological dimensions. Diversity builds long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
insurance and keeps systems resilient to changing cir- source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
cumstances. Clearly, nurturing resilience is of great sig- if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
nificance in transformations towards sustainability and indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
requires collective action on multiple fronts, action that is included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
already being tested by increasing turbulence incurred by use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
seemingly unrelated shocks. use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.
Equality holds communities together, and enables org/licenses/by/4.0/.
nations, and regions to evolve along sustainable develop-
ment trajectories. Inequality, in terms of both social and
natural capitals, are on the rise in the world, and need to be
addressed as an integral part of our future on Earth. REFERENCES
We are facing a rapid and significant repositioning of
sustainability as the lens through which innovation, tech- Abson, D.J.J., J. Fischer, J. Leventon, J. Newig, T. Schomerus, U.
Vilsmaier, H. von Wehrden, P. Abernethy, et al. 2017. Leverage
nology and development is driven and achieved. What only
points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46: 30–39.
a few years ago was seen as a sacrifice is today creating Adger, W.N., H. Eakin, and A. Winkels. 2009. Nested and
new purposes and meanings, shaping values and culture, teleconnected vulnerabilities to environmental change. Frontiers
and is increasingly seen as a pathway to novelty, compet- in Ecology and the Environment 7: 150–157.
Alberti, M., C. Correa, J.M. Marzluff, A.P. Hendry, E.P. Palkovacs,
itiveness and progress.
K.M. Gotanda, V.M. Hunt, T.M. Apgar, et al. 2017. Global
This is a time when science is needed more than ever. urban signatures of phenotypic change in animal and plant
Science provides informed consensus on the facts and populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
trade-offs in times of misinformation and polemics. The USA 114: 8951–8956.
Althor, G., J.E.M. Watson, and R.A. Fuller. 2016. Global mismatch
planetary challenges that confront humanity need gover-
between greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of climate
nance that mobilizes the best that science has to offer with change. Science Reports 6: 20281.
shared visions for sustainable futures and political will and Anderies, J.M., S.R. Carpenter, W. Steffen, and J. Rockström. 2013.
competence to implement choices that will sustain The topology of non-linear global carbon dynamics: From

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
tipping points to planetary boundaries. Environmental Research Biermann, F., and P. Pattberg. 2008. Global environmental gover-
Letters 8: 044048. nance: Taking stock, moving forward. Annual Review of
Andersson, E., S. Barthel, S. Borgström, J. Colding, T. Elmqvist, C. Environment and Resources 33: 277–294.
Folke, and Å. Gren. 2014. Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: Biermann, F., K. Abbott, S. Andresen, K. Bäckstrand, S. Bernstein,
Stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem M.M. Betsill, H. Bulkeley, B. Cashore, et al. 2012. Navigating
services. Ambio 43: 445–453. the anthropocene: Improving earth system governance. Science
Arneth, A., F. Denton, F. Agus, A. Elbehri, K. Erb, B. Osman Elasha, 335: 1306–1307.
M. Rahimi, M. Rounsevell, et al. 2019. Framing and Context. In Biggs, R., M. Schlüter, D. Biggs, E.L. Bohensky, S. BurnSilver, G.
Climate Change and Land. An IPCC Special Report on Climate Cundill, V. Dakos, T.M. Daw, et al. 2012. Toward principles for
Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annual Review
Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in of Environment and Resources 37: 421–448.
Terrestrial Ecosystems (IPCC, 2019). Blasiak, R., J. Spijkers, K. Tokunaga, J. Pittman, N. Yagi, and H.
AWG. 2019. The Anthropocene Working Group http://quaternary. Österblom. 2017. Climate change and marine fisheries: Least
stratigraphy.org/working-groups/anthropocene/ developed countries top global index of vulnerability. PLoS ONE
Bain, W. 2019. Continuity and change in international relations 12: e0179632.
1919–2019. International Relations 33: 132–141. Blasiak, R., J.-B. Jouffray, C.C.C. Wabnitz, E. Sundström, and H.
Baland, J.M., P. Bardhan, and S. Bowles, eds. 2007. Inequality, Österblom. 2018. Corporate control and global governance of
cooperation, and environmental sustainability. Princeton, USA: marine genetic resources. Sciences Advances 4: 5237.
Princeton University Press. Blasiak, R., R. Wynberg, K. Grorud-Colvert, S. Thambisetty, N.M.
Barbier, E.B., J.C. Burgess, and T.J. Dean. 2018. How to pay for Bandarra, A.V.M. Canário, J. da Silva, C.M. Duarte, et al. 2020.
saving biodiversity. Science 360: 486–488. The ocean genome and future prospects for conservation and
Barnosky, A.D., E.A. Hadly, J. Bascompte, E.L. Berlow, J.H. Brown, equity. Nature Sustainability 3: 588–596.
M. Fortelius, W.M. Getz, J. Harte, et al. 2012. Approaching a Bowles, S., S.N. Durlauf, and K. Hoff. 2006. Poverty Traps.
state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature 486: 52–58. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Barocas, S., K. Crawford, A. Shapiro, H. Wallach. 2017. The problem Boyd, E., B. Nykvist, S. Borgström, and I.A. Stacewicz. 2015.
with bias: from allocative to representational harms in machine Anticipatory governance for social-ecological resilience. Ambio
learning Information and Society (SIGCIS) Special Interest 44: S149–S161.
Group for Computing. Breuer, A., T. Landman, and D. Farquhar. 2015. Social media and
Bar-On, Y.M., R. Phillips, and R. Milo. 2018. The biomass protest mobilization: Evidence from the Tunisian revolution.
distribution on Earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Democratization 22: 764–792.
Sciences, USA 115: 6506–6511. Brienen, R., O.L. Phillips, T.R. Feldpausch, E. Gloor, T.R. Baker, J.
Barrett, S. 2016. Coordination vs. voluntarism and enforcement in Lloyd, G. Lopez-Gonzalez, A. Monteagudo-Mendoza, et al.
sustaining international environmental cooperation. Proceedings 2015. Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink. Nature
of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 113: 14515–14522. 519: 344–348.
Barrett, S., A. Dasgupta, P. Dasgupta, W.N. Adger, J. Anderies, J. van Brodie Rudolph, T., M. Ruckelshaus, M. Swilling, E.H. Allison, H.
den Bergh, C. Bledsoe, et al. 2020. Fertility behavior and Österblom, S. Gelcich, and P. Mbatha. 2020. A transition to
consumption patterns in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the sustainable ocean governance. Nature Communication 11: 3600.
National Academy of Sciences, USA 117: 6300–6307. Brondizio, E.S., and F.-M. Le Tourneau. 2016. Environmental
Barthel, S., C. Crumley, and U. Svedin. 2013. Bio-cultural refugia: governance for all. Science 352: 1272–1273.
Safeguarding diversity of practices for food security and Brondizio, E.S., E. Ostrom, and O.R. Young. 2009. Connectivity and
biodiversity. Global Environmental Change 23: 1142–1152. the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: The role
Barthel, S., J. Colding, T. Elmqvist, and C. Folke. 2005. History and of social capital. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
local management of a biodiversity rich, urban, cultural land- 34: 253–278.
scape. Ecology and Society 10: 10. Brown, K. 2016. Resilience, Development and Global Change.
Beckert, J. 2016. Imagined Futures: Fictional Expectations and London, UK: Routledge.
Capitalist Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burke, K.D., J.W. Williams, M.A. Chandler, A.M. Haywood, D.J.
Bennett, E.M., M. Solan, R. Biggs, T. McPhearson, A.V. Norström, P. Lunt, and B.L. Otto-Bliesner. 2018. Pliocene and Eocene
Olsson, L. Pereira, G.D. Peterson, et al. 2016. Bright spots: provide best analogs for near-future climates. Proceedings of
Seeds of a good Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the the National Academy of Sciences, USA 115: 13288–13293.
Environment 14: 441–448. Carpenter, S.R., and E.M. Bennett. 2011. Reconsideration of the
Bennett, E.M., W. Cramer, A. Begossi, G. Cundill, S. Diaz, B.N. planetary boundary for phosphorus. Environmental Research
Egoh, I.R. Geijzendorffer, C.B. Krug, et al. 2015. Linking Letters 6: 014009.
biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: Three Carpenter, S.R., E.M. Bennett, and G.D. Peterson. 2006. Scenarios for
challenges for designing research for sustainability. Current ecosystem services: An overview. Ecology and Society 11: 29.
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 76–85. Carpenter, S.R., C. Folke, M. Scheffer, and F. Westley. 2009.
Bennett, N.J., T.S. Whitty, E. Finkbeiner, J. Pittman, H. Bassett, S. Resilience: Accounting for the non-computable. Ecology and
Gelcich, and E.H. Allison. 2018. Environmental stewardship: A Society 14: 13.
conceptual review and analytical framework. Environmental Carpenter, S.R., K.J. Arrow, S. Barrett, R. Biggs, W.A. Brock, A.-S.
Management 61: 597–614. Crépin, G. Engström, C. Folke, et al. 2012. General resilience to
Bergstrom, C.T., and J.B. Bak-Coleman. 2019. Gerrymandering in cope with extreme events. Sustainability 4: 3248–3259.
social networks. Nature 573: 40–41. Carpenter, S.R., W. Brock, C. Folke, E. van der Nees, and M.
Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke, eds. 2003. Navigating Social- Scheffer. 2015. Allowing variance may enlarge the safe oper-
ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and ating space for exploited ecosystems. Proceedings of the
change. Cambridg: Cambridge University Press. National Academy of Sciences, USA 112: 14384–14389.

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
Carpenter, S.R., C. Folke, M. Scheffer, and F.R. Westley. 2019. bottom-up assessments of climate risks and adaptation in
Dancing on the volcano: Social exploration in times of climate-sensitive regions. Nature Climate Change 9: 503–511.
discontent. Ecology and Society 24: 23. Costanza, R., H. Daly, C. Folke, P. Hawken, C.S. Holling, T.
Cash, D.W., W. Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Olsson, L. McMichael, D. Pimentel, and D. Rapport. 2000. Managing our
Pritchard, and O. Young. 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: environmental portfolio. BioScience 50: 149–155.
Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Costanza, R., R. de Groot, P. Sutton, S. vad der Ploeg, S.J. Anderson,
Society 11: 8. I. Kubiszewski, S. Farber, and R.K. Turner. 2014. Changes in the
Cash, D.W., W.C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. Dickson, N. Eckley, D.H. global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental
Guston, J. Jäger, and R.B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledge systems Change 26: 152–158.
for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Costello, C., L. Cao, S. Gelcich, M.A. Cisneros-Mata, C.M. Free,
Academy of Sciences, USA 100: 8086–8091. H.E. Froehlich, C.G. Golden, G. Ishimura, et al. 2020. The future
Cave, S., and S.S. Óhéigeartaigh. 2019. Bridging near- and long-term of food from the sea. Nature 588: 95–100.
concerns about AI. Nature Machine Intelligence 1: 5–6. Cottrell, R.S., K.L. Nash, B.S. Halpern, T.A. Remeny, S.P. Corney,
Centeno, M.A., M. Nag, T.S. Patterson, A. Shaver, and A.J. Windawi. A. Fleming, E.A. Fulton, S. Hornborg, et al. 2019. Food
2015. The emergence of global systemic risk. Annual Review of production shocks across land and sea. Nature Sustainability 2:
Sociology 41: 65–85. 130–137.
Chaffin, B.C., and L.H. Gunderson. 2016. Emergence, institutional- Creanza, N., O. Kolodny, and M.W. Feldman. 2017. Cultural
ization, and renewal: rhythms of adaptive governance in evolutionary theory: how culture evolves and why it matters.
complex social-ecological systems. Journal of Environmental Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 114:
Management 165: 81–87. 7782–7789.
Chaffin, B.C., H. Gosnell, and B.A. Cosens. 2014. A decade of Crona, B.I., and J.N. Parker. 2012. Learning in support of governance:
adaptive governance scholarship: Synthesis and future direc- Theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging
tions. Ecology and Society 19: 56. organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecol-
Chapin, F.S., III., B.H. Walker, R.J. Hobbs, D.U. Hooper, J.H. ogy and Society 17: 32.
Lawton, O.E. Sala, and D. Tilman. 1997. Biotic control over the Crona, B.I., T. Daw, W. Swartz, A. Norström, M. Nyström, M.
functioning of ecosystems. Science 277: 500–504. Thyresson, C. Folke, J. Hentati-Sundberg, et al. 2016. Masked,
Chapin, F.S., III., S.R. Carpenter, G.P. Kofinas, C. Folke, N. Abel, diluted, and drowned out: Global seafood trade weakens signals
W.C. Clark, P. Olsson, D.M.S. Smith, et al. 2010. Ecosystem from marine ecosystems. Fish and Fisheries 17: 1175–1182.
stewardship: Sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing Crona, B.I., T. Van Holt, M. Petersson, T.M. Daw, and E. Buchary.
planet. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25: 241–249. 2015. Using social-ecological syndromes to understand impacts
Chapin, F.S., III. 2020. Grassroots stewardship: Sustainability within of international seafood trade on small-scale fisheries. Global
our reach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Environmental Change 35: 162–175.
Chaplin-Kramer, R., R.P. Sharp, C. Weil, E.M. Bennett, U. Pascual, Cumming, G.S., and G.D. Peterson. 2017. Unifying research on
K.K. Arkema, K.A. Brauman, B.P. Bryant, et al. 2019. Global social-ecological resilience and collapse. Trends in Ecology &
modelling of nature’s contributions to people. Science 366: Evolution 32: 695–713.
255–258. Daily, G.C., ed. 1997. Nature’s services: Societal dependence on
Ciais, P., C. Sabine, B. Govindasamy, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. natural ecosystems. Washington DC: Island Press.
Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, et al. 2013. Chapter 6: Carbon Daily, G., T. Söderqvist, S. Aniyar, K. Arrow, P. Dasgupta, P.R.
and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In Climate Change 2013: The Ehrlich, C. Folke, A.-M. Jansson, et al. 2000. The value of nature
Physical Science Basis, eds. T. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Platner, and the nature of value? Science 289: 395–396.
et al. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Daily, G.C., S. Polasky, J. Goldstein, P. Kareiva, H.A. Mooney, L.
Cinner, J.E., J. Zamborain-Mason, G.G. Gurney, N.A.J. Graham, Pejchar, T.H. Ricketts, J. Salzman, et al. 2009. Ecosystem
M.A. MacNeil, A.S. Hoey, C. Mora, S. Villéger, et al. 2020. services in decision making: time to deliver. Frontiers in
Meeting fisheries, ecosystem function, and biodiversity goals in Ecology and the Environment 7: 21–28.
a human-dominated world. Science 368: 307–311. Dasgupta, P. 2014. Measuring the wealth of nations. Annual Review
Cinner, J.E., W.N. Adger, E.H. Allison, M.L. Barnes, K. Brown, P.J. of Resource Economics 6: 17–31.
Cohen, S. Gelcich, C.C. Hicks, et al. 2018. Building adaptive Dasgupta, P. 2021. The economics of biodiversity: The dasgupta
capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. review. London: HMTreasury.
Nature Climate Change 8: 117–123. Dasgupta, P., and V. Ramanathan. 2014. Pursuit of the common good.
Clark, W.C., and A.G. Harley. 2020. Sustainability science: Towards Science 345: 1457–2145.
a synthesis. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 45: Dasgupta, P., and K.-G. Mäler. 2000. Net national product, wealth
331–386. and social well-being. Environment and Development Economics
Clark, W.C., L. van Kerkhoff, L. Lebel, and G. Gallopi. 2016. 5: 69–93.
Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Pro- de Vries, W., J. Kros, C. Kroeze, and S.P. Seitzinger. 2013. Assessing
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 113: planetary and regional nitrogen boundaries related to food
4570–4578. security and adverse environmental impacts. Current Opinion in
Conselice, C.J., A. Wilkinson, K. Duncan, and A. Mortlock. 2016. Environmental Sustainability 5: 392–402.
The evolution of galaxy number density at Z \ 8 and its Dearing, J.A., R. Wang, K. Zhang, J.G. Dyke, H. Haberl, Md. Sarwar
implications. The Astrophysical Journal 830: 83. Hossain, P.G. Langdon, T.M. Lenton, et al. 2014. Safe and just
Coe, N.M., M. Hess, H.W.-C. Yeung, P. Dicken, and J. Henderson. operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems. Global
2004. ‘Globalizing’ regional development: a global production Environmental Change 28: 227–238.
networks perspective. Transactions of the Institute of British Del Vicario, M., A. Bessi, F. Zollo, F. Petroni, A. Scala, G. Caldarelli,
Geographers 29: 468–484. H.E. Stanley, and W. Quattrociocchi. 2016. The spreading of
Conway, D., R.J. Nicholls, S. Brown, M.G.L. Tebboth, W.N. Adger, misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of
B. Ahmad, H. Biemans, F. Crick, et al. 2019. The need for Sciences, USA 113: 554–559.

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
Dı́az, S., J. Settle, E.S. Brondı́zio, H.T Ngo, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Falkenmark, M., L. Wang-Erlandsson, and J. Rockström. 2019.
Balvanera, K.A. Brauman, et al. 2019. Pervasive human-driven Understanding of water resilience in the Anthropocene. Journal
decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative of Hydrology X 2: 100009.
change. Science 366: eaax3100eaax3100. Ferrara, E., O. Varol, C. Davis, F. Menczer, and A. Flammini. 2016.
Diaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. Martı́n-López, R.T. Watson, Z. The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM 59: 96–104.
Molnár, R. Hill, K.M.A. Chan, et al. 2018. Assessing nature’s Fischer, J., and M. Riechers. 2019. A leverage points perspective on
contributions to people: recognizing culture, and diverse sources sustainability. People and Nature 1: 115–120.
of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science 359: 270–272. Folke, C., S.R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Elmqvist, L.
Diffenbaugh, N.S. 2020. Verification of extreme event attribution: Gunderson, and C.S. Holling. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience,
using out-of-sample observations to assess changes in probabil- and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of
ities of unprecedented events. Science Advances 6: 2368. Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35: 557–581.
Downing, A.S., A. Bhowmik, D. Collste, S.E. Cornell, J. Donges, I. Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive
Fetzer, T. Häyhä, J. Hinton, et al. 2019. Matching scope, purpose governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of
and uses of planetary boundaries science. Environmental Environment and Resources 30: 441–473.
Research Letters 14: 073005. Folke, C., S.R. Carpenter, B.H. Walker, M. Scheffer, F.S. Chapin III.,
Drefahl, S., M. Wallace, E. Mussino, S. Aradhya, M. Kolk, M. and J. Rockström. 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating
Brandén, and B.G. MalmbergAndersson. 2020. A population- resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Soci-
based cohort study of socio-demographic risk factors for ety 15: 20.
COVID-19 deaths in Sweden. Nature Communications 11: Folke, C., Å. Jansson, J. Rockström, P. Olsson, S.R. Carpenter, F.S.
5097. Chapin III., A.-S. Crépin, G. Daily, et al. 2011. Reconnecting to
Dryzek, J.S., A. Bächtiger, S. Chambers, J. Cohen, J.N. Druckman, A. the Biosphere. Ambio 40: 719–738.
Felicetti, J.S. Fishkin, D.M. Farrell, et al. 2019. The crisis of Folke, C., R. Biggs, A.V. Norström, B. Reyers, and J. Rockström.
democracy and the science of deliberation. Science 363: 2016. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustain-
1144–1146. ability science. Ecology and Society 21: 41.
Duarte, C.M., S. Agusti, E. Barbier, G.L. Britten, J.-C. Castilla, J.-P. Folke, C., H. Österblom, J.-B. Jouffray, E. Lambin, M. Scheffer, B.I.
Gattuso, R.W. Fulweiler, T.P. Hughes, et al. 2020. Rebuilding Crona, M. Nyström, S.A. Levin, et al. 2019. Transnational
marine life. Nature 580: 39–51. corporations and the challenge of biosphere stewardship. Nature
Durante, F., S.T. Fiske, M.J. Gelfand, F. Crippa, C. Suttora, A. Ecology & Evolution 3: 1396–1403.
Stillwell, F. Asbrock, Z. Aycan, et al. 2017. Ambivalent Folke, C., S. Polasky, J. Rockström, V. Galaz, F. Westley, M.
stereotypes link to peace, conflict, and inequality across 38 Lamont, M. Scheffer, H. Österblom, et al. 2020. Our future in the
nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA Anthropocene biosphere: Global sustainability and resilient
114: 669–674. societies. Paper for the Nobel Prize Summit - Our Planet, Our
Elhacham, E., L. Ben-Uri, J. Grozovski, Y.M. Bar-On, and R. Milo. Future. Beijer Discussion Paper 272. Beijer Institute, Royal
2020. Global human-made mass exceeds all living biomass. Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.
Nature 588: 442–444. Forbes, B.C., F. Stammler, T. Kumpula, N. Meschtyb, A. Pajunen,
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2019. Completing the Picture: How the and E. Kaarlejarvi. 2009. High resilience in the Yamal-Nenets
Circular Economy Tackles Climate Change. http://www. social-ecological system, West Siberian Arctic, Russia. Pro-
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 106:
Ellis, E.C. 2015. Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere. Ecological 22041–22048.
Monographs 85: 287–331. Fortnam, M., K. Brown, T. Chaigneau, B. Crona, T.M. Daw, D.
Ellis, E.C., and N. Ramankutty. 2008. Putting people in the map: Goncalves, C. Hicks, M. Revmatas, et al. 2019. The gendered
Anthropogenic biomes of the world. Frontiers in Ecology and nature of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 159:
the Environment 6: 439–447. 312–325.
Elmqvist, T., C. Folke, M. Nyström, G. Peterson, J. Bengtsson, B. Freeman, J., J.A. Baggio, and T.R. Coyle. 2020. Social and general
Walker, and J. Norberg. 2003. Response diversity, ecosystem intelligence improves collective action in a common pool
change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environ- resource systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of
ment 1: 488–494. Sciences, USA 117: 7712–7718.
Elmqvist, T., E. Andersson, N. Frantzeskaki, T. McPhearson, P. Frei, B., C. Queiroz, B. Chaplin-Kramer, E. Andersson, D. Renard,
Olsson, O. Gaffney, K. Takeuchi, and C. Folke. 2019. Sustain- J.M. Rhemtulla, and E.M. Bennett. 2020. A brighter future:
ability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Complementary goals of diversity and multifunctionality to
Nature Sustainability 2: 267–273. build resilient agricultural landscapes. Global Food Security 26:
Engström, G., J. Gars, C. Krishnamurthy, D. Spiro, R. Calel, T. 100407.
Lindahl, and B. Narayanan. 2020. Carbon pricing and planetary Friedlingstein, P., M.W. Jones, M. O’Sullivan, R.M. Andrew, J.
boundaries. Nature Communications 11: 4688. Hauck, A. Olsen, G.P. Peters, W. Peters, et al. 2020. Global
Enqvist, J.P., S. West, V.A. Masterson, L.J. Haider, U. Svedin, and M. carbon budget 2020. Earth Systems Science Data 12:
Tengö. 2018. Stewardship as a boundary object for sustainability 3269–3340.
research: Linking care, knowledge and agency. Landscape and Gaines, S.D., C. Costello, B. Owashi, T. Mangin, J. Bone, J.G.
Urban Planning 179: 17–37. Molinos, M. Burden, H. Dennis, et al. 2018. Improved fisheries
Erb, K.H., T. Kastner, C. Plutzar, A.L.S. Bais, N. Carvalhais, T. management could offset many negative effects of climate
Fetzel, S. Gingrich, C. Lauk, et al. 2018. Unexpectedly large change. Science Advances 4: 1378.
impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation Galaz, V. 2014. Global environmental governance, technology and
biomass. Nature 553: 73–76. politics: The anthropocene gap. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Estes, J.A., J. Terborgh, J.S. Brashares, M.E. Power, J. Berger, W.J. Publishing.
Bond, S.R. Carpenter, T.E. Essington, et al. 2011. Trophic Galaz, V., B. Crona, H. Österblom, P. Olsson, and C. Folke. 2012.
downgrading of Planet Earth. Science 333: 301–306. Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries:

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
Emerging governance of climate change – ocean acidification– Gunderson, L.H., and C.S. Holling, eds. 2002. Panarchy: Under-
marine biodiversity. Ecological Economics 81: 21–32. standing transformations in human and natural systems. Wash-
Galaz, V., H. Österblom, Ö. Bodin, and B. Crona. 2016. Global ington DC: Island Press.
networks and global change-induced tipping points. Interna- Hackmann, H., A.L. St. Clair. 2012. Transformative cornerstones of
tional Environmental Agreements 16: 189–221. social science research for global change. Paris: Report of the
Galaz, V., J. Tallberg, A. Boin, C. Ituarte-Lima, E. Hey, P. Olsson, international Social Science Council.
and F. Westley. 2017. Global governance dimensions of globally Haenfler, R., B. Johnson, and E. Jones. 2012. Lifestyle movements:
networked risks: the state of the art in social science research. Exploring the intersection of lifestyle and social movements.
Risk, Hazards, & Crisis in Public Policy 8: 4–27. Social Movement Studies 11: 1–20.
Galaz, V., B. Crona, A. Dauriach, B. Scholtens, and W. Steffen. 2018. Hahn, T., P. Olsson, C. Folke, and K. Johansson. 2006. Trust building,
Finance and the Earth system: Exploring the links between knowledge generation and organizational innovations: The role
financial actors and non-linear changes in the climate system. of a bridging organization for adaptive co-management of a
Global Environmental Change 53: 296–302. wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Human Ecology
Gaupp, F., J. Hall, S. Hochrainer-Stigler, and S. Dadson. 2020. 34: 573–592.
Changing risks of simultaneous global breadbasket failure. Haider, L.J., W.J. Boonstra, A. Akobirshoeva, and M. Schlüter. 2019.
Nature Climate Change 10: 54–57. Effects of development interventions on biocultural diversity: A
Geels, F.W. 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary recon- case study from the Pamir Mountains. Agriculture and Human
figuration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Values 37: 683–697.
Research Policy 31: 1257–1274. Haider, L.J., M. Schlüter, C. Folke, and B. Reyers. 2021. Rethinking
Geels, F.W., B.K. Sovacool, T. Schwanen, and S. Sorrell. 2017. resilience and development: A coevolutionary perspective.
Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonisation. Science 357: Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01485-8.
1242–1244. Hall, P.A., and M. Lamont, eds. 2013. Social resilience in the
Gelcich, S., T.P. Hughes, P. Olsson, C. Folke, O. Defeo, M. Neoliberal Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fernández, S. Foale, L.H. Gunderson, et al. 2010. Navigating Hallegatte, S., M. Bangalore, L. Bonzanigo, M. Fay, T. Kane, U.
transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal Narloch, J. Rozenberg, D. Treguer, et al. 2016. Shock waves:
resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, managing the impacts of climate change on poverty. Washing-
USA 107: 16794–16799. ton, DC: World Bank.
Gerbaudo, P., and E. Treré. 2015. In search of the ‘we’of social media Halpern, B.S., S. Walbridge, K.A. Selkoe, C.V. Kappel, F. Micheli,
activism: introduction to the special issue on social media and C. D’Agrosa, J.F. Bruno, K.S. Casey, et al. 2008. A global map
protest identities. Information, Communication & Society 18: of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319: 948–952.
865–871. Hamann, M., R. Biggs, and B. Reyers. 2015. Mapping social-
Gleeson, T., L. Wang-Erlandsson, M. Porkka, S.C. Zipper, F. ecological systems: identifying ‘green-loop’ and ‘red-loop’
Jaramillo, D. Gerten, I. Fetzer, S.E. Cornell, et al. 2020a. dynamics based on characteristic bundles of ecosystem service
Illuminating water cycle modifications and Earth System use. Global Environmental Change 34: 218–226.
resilience in the Anthropocene. Water Resources Research 56: Hamann, M., K. Berry, T. Chaigneau, T. Curry, R. Heilmayr, P.J.G.
e2019WR024957. Henriksson, J. Hentati-Sundberg, A. Jina, et al. 2018. Inequality
Gleeson, T., L. Wang-Erlandsson, S.C. Zipper, M. Porkka, F. and the biosphere. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
Jaramillo, D. Gerten, I. Fetzer, S.E. Cornell, et al. 2020. The 43: 61–83.
water planetary boundary: interrogation and revision. One Earth Harper, S., D. Zeller, M. Hauzer, D. Pauly, and U.R. Sumaila. 2013.
2: 223–234. Women and fisheries: Contribution to food security and local
Gordon, L.J., V. Bignet, B. Crona, P. Henriksson, T. van Holt, M. economies. Marine Policy 39: 56–63.
Jonell, T. Lindahl, M. Troell, et al. 2017. Rewiring food systems Hassan, N., M. Yousuf, M.A. Mahfuzul Haque, J. Suarez Rivas, and
to enhance human health and biosphere stewardship. Environ- M. Khadimul Islam. 2019. Examining the roles of automation,
mental Research Letters 12: 100201. crowds and professionals towards sustainable fact-checking.
Green, J.F., and B. Rudyk. 2020. Closing the high seas to fishing: A Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web
club approach. Marine Policy 115: 103855. Conference, 1001–1006.
Grêt-Regamey, A., S.H. Huber, and R. Huber. 2019. Actors’ diversity Häyhä, T., P.L. Lucas, D.P. van Vuuren, S.E. Corell, and H. Hoff.
and the resilience of social-ecological systems to global change. 2016. From Planetary Boundaries to national fair shares of the
Nature Sustainability 2: 290–297. global safe operating space: How can the scales be bridged?
Grinberg, N., K. Joseph, L. Friedland, B. Swire-Thompson, and D. Global Environmental Change 40: 60–72.
Lazer. 2019. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. Heal, G., B.H. Walker, S.A. Levin, K. Arrow, P. Dasgupta, G. Daily,
presidential election. Science 363: 374–378. P. Ehrlich, K.-G. Maler, et al. 2004. Genetic diversity and
Griscom, B.W., J. Adams, P.W. Ellis, R.A. Houghton, G. Lomax, interdependent crop choices in agriculture. Resource and Energy
D.A. Miteva, W.H. Schlesinger, D. Shoch, et al. 2017. Natural Economics 26: 175–184.
climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Helbing, D. 2013. Globally networked risks and how to respond.
Sciences, USA 114: 11645–11650. Nature 497: 51–59.
Gruber, N., D. Clement, B.R. Carter, R.A. Feely, S. van Heuven, M. Hendershot, J.N., J.R. Smith, C.B. Anderson, A.D. Letten, L.O.
Hoppema, M. Ishii, R.M. Key, et al. 2019. The oceanic sink Frishkoff, J.R. Zook, T. Fukami, and G.C Daily. 2020. Intensive
for anthropogenic CO2 from 1994 to 2007. Science 363: farming drives long-term shifts in community composition.
1193–1199. Nature 579: 393–396.
Guerry, A.D., S. Polasky, J. Lubchenco, R. Chaplin-Kramer, G.C. Hicks, C.C., P.J. Cohen, N.A.J. Graham, K.L. Nash, E.H. Allison, C.
Daily, R. Griffin, M. Ruckelshaus, I.J. Bateman, et al. 2015. D’Lima, D.J. Mills, M. Roscher, et al. 2019. Harnessing global
Natural capital informing decisions: From promise to practice. fisheries to tackle micronutrient deficiencies. Nature 574: 95–98.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 112: Hino, M., E. Benami, and N. Brooks. 2018. Machine learning for
7348–7355. environmental monitoring. Nature Sustainability 1: 583–588.

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
Hirota, M., M. Holmgren, E.H. van Nes, and M. Scheffer. 2011. Kates, R.W., and W.C. Clark. 1996. Environmental surprise: expect-
Global resilience of tropical forest and savanna to critical ing the unexpected. Environment 38: 6–11.
transitions. Science 334: 232–235. Kates, R.W., and P. Dasgupta. 2007. African poverty: A great
Holling, C.S., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1998. Science, sustainability, challenge for sustainability science. Proceedings of the National
and resource management. In Linking social and ecological Academy of Sciences, USA 104: 16747–16750.
systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for Kates, R.W., W.R. Travis, and T.J. Wilbanks. 2012. Transformational
building resilience, ed. F. Berkes and C. Folke, 342–362. adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. insufficient. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
Hooper, D.U., F.S. Chapin III., J.J. Ewel, A. Hector, P. Inchausti, S. USA 109: 7156–7161.
Lavorel, J.H. Lawton, D.M. Lodge, et al. 2005. Effects of Keohane, R.O., S. Macedo, and A. Moravcsik. 2009. Democracy-
biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current enhancing multilateralism. International Organization 63: 1–31.
knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75: 3–35. Keys, P.W., L. Wang-Erlandsson, and L.J. Gordon. 2016. Revealing
Houghton, R.A. 2007. Balancing the global carbon budget. Annual invisible water: Moisture recycling as an ecosystem service.
Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 35: 313–347. PLoS ONE 11: e0151993.
Huang, K., X. Li, X. Liu, and K.C. Seto. 2019. Projecting global Keys, P.W., L. Wang-Erlandsson, and L.J. Gordon. 2018. Megacity
urban land expansion and heat island intensification through precipitationsheds reveal tele-connected water security chal-
2050. Environmental Research Letters 14: 114037. lenges. PLoS ONE 13: e0194311.
Hughes, T.P., M.J. Rodrigues, D.R. Bellwood, D. Ceccarelli, O. Keys, P., V. Galaz, M. Dyer, N. Matthews, C. Folke, M. Nyström, and
Hoegh-Guldberg, L. McCook, N. Moltschaniwsky, M.S. Pratch- S. Cornell. 2019. Anthropocene risk. Nature Sustainability 2:
ett, et al. 2007. Phase shifts, herbivory, and the resilience of coral 667–673.
reefs to climate change. Current Biology 17: 1–6. Khoury, K.C., A.D. Bjorkman, H. Dempewolf, J. Ramirez-Villegas,
Hughes, T.P., S.R. Carpenter, J. Rockström, M. Scheffer, and B.H. L. Guarino, A. Jarvis, L.H. Rieseberg, and P.C. Struik. 2014.
Walker. 2013. Multiscale regime shifts and planetary bound- Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the impli-
aries. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28: 389–395. cations for food security. Proceedings of the National Academy
Ide, T., M. Brzoska, J.F. Donges, and C.-F. Schleussner. 2020. Multi- of Sciences, USA 111: 4001–4006.
method evidence for when and how climate-related disasters King, A.D., and L.J. Harrington. 2018. The inequality of climate
contribute to armed conflict risk. Global Environmental Change change from 1.5 to 2°C of global warming. Geophysical
62: 102063. Research Letters 45: 5030–5033.
Ilieva, R.T., and T. McPhearson. 2018. Social-media data for urban Kinzig, A.P., C. Perrings, F.S. Chapin III., S. Polasky, V.K. Smith, D.
sustainability. Nature Sustainability 1: 553–565. Tilman, and B.L. Turner. 2011. Paying for ecosystem services:
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of promise and peril. Science 334: 603–604.
Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of Kremen, C., and A.M. Merenlender. 2018. Landscapes that work for
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing biodiversity and people. Science 362: eaau6020
Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.). IPCC, Geneva, Kummu, M., P. Kinnunen, E. Lehikoinen, M. Porkka, C. Queiroz, E.
Switzerland, 151 pp. Röös, M. Troell, and C. Weil. 2020. Interplay of trade and food
Isbell, F., A. Gonzalez, M. Loreau, J. Cowles, S. Diaz, A. Hector, system resilience: Gains on supply diversity over time at the cost
G.M. Mace, D.A. Wardle, et al. 2017. Linking the influence and of trade independency. Global Food Security 24: 100360.
dependence of people on biodiversity across scales. Nature 546: Lachat, C., J.E. Raneri, K. Walker Smith, P. Kolsteren, P. Van
65–72. Damme, K. Verzelen, D. Penafiel, W. Vanhove, et al. 2018.
Islam, S.N., and J. Winkel. 2017. Climate Change and Social Dietary species richness as a measure of food biodiversity and
Inequality. DESA Working Paper 152. Department of Economic nutritional quality of diets. Proceedings of the National Academy
& Social Affairs, United Nations. of Sciences, USA 115: 127–132.
Jachimowicz, J.M., S. Chafik, S. Munrat, J. Prabhu, and E.U. Weber. Lade, S.J., L.J. Haider, G. Engström, and M. Schlüter. 2017.
2017. Community trust reduces myopic decisions in low-income Resilience offers escape from trapped thinking on poverty
individuals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, alleviation. Science Advances 3: e1603043.
USA 114: 5401–5406. Lade, S.J., W. Steffen, W. de Vries, S.R. Carpenter, J.F. Donges, D.
Joppa, L.N. 2017. AI for Earth. Nature 552: 325–328. Gerten, H. Hoff, T. Newbold, et al. 2020. Human impacts on
Jørgensen, P.S., A. Aktipis, Z. Brown, Y. Carrière, S. Downes, R.R. planetary boundaries amplified by Earth system interactions.
Dunn, G. Epstein, G.B. Frisvold, et al. 2018. Antibiotic and Nature Sustainability 3: 119–128.
pesticide susceptibility and the Anthropocene operating space. Laliberte, E., J.A. Wells, F. DeClerck, D.J. Metcalfe, C.P. Catterall,
Nature Sustainability 1: 632–641. C. Queiroz, I. Aubin, S.P. Bonser, et al. 2010. Land-use
Jørgensen, P.S., C. Folke, and S.P. Carroll. 2019. Evolution in the intensification reduces functional redundancy and response
Anthropocene: Informing governance and policy. Annual Review diversity in plant communities. Ecology Letters 13: 76–86.
of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 50: 527–546. Lambin, E.F., and P. Meyfroidt. 2011. Global land use change,
Jouffray, J.-B., B. Crona, E. Wassenius, J. Bebbington, and B. economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Pro-
Scholtens. 2019. Leverage points in the financial sector for ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 108:
seafood sustainability. Science Advances 5: eaax3324. 3465–3472.
Jouffray, J.-B., R. Blasiak, A.V. Norström, H. Österblom, and M. Lamont, M. 2018. Addressing recognition gaps: destigmatization and
Nyström. 2020. The blue acceleration: The trajectory of human the reduction of inequality. American Sociological Review 83:
expansion into the ocean. One Earth 2: 43–54. 419–444.
Kartha, S., E. Kemp-Benedict, E. Ghosh, A. Nazareth, and T. Gore. Lamont, M. 2019. From ‘having’ to ‘being’: self-worth and the
2020. The Carbon Inequality Era: An assessment of the global current crisis of American society. The British Journal of
distribution of consumption emissions among individuals from Sociology 70: 660–707.
1990 to 2015 and beyond. Joint Research Report. Stockholm Lamont, M., L. Adler, B.Y. Park, and X. Xiang. 2017. Bridging
Environment Institute and Oxfam International cultural sociology and cognitive psychology in three

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
contemporary research programmes. Nature Human Behaviour Mbow, C., C. Rosenzweig, L.G. Barioni, T.G. Benton, M. Herrero,
1: 886–872. et al. 2019. Food Security. In Climate Change and Land: an IPCC
Lazer, D.M., M.A. Baum, Y. Benkler, A.J. Berinsky, K.M. Greenhill, special report on climate change, desertification, land degrada-
F. Menczer, M.J. Metzger, B. Nyhan, et al. 2018. The science of tion, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse
fake news. Science 359: 1094–1096. gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems, eds. P.R. Shukla, et al.
Le Quéré, C., R.B. Jackson, M.W. Jones, A.J.P. Smith, S. Abernethy, McAfee, A. 2019. More from less: The surprising story of how we
R.M. Andrew, A.J. De-Gol, D.R. Willis, et al. 2020. Temporary learned to prosper using fewer resources, and what happens
reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 next. New York: Scribner.
forced confinement. Nature Climate Change 10: 647–653. McCauley, D.J., P. Woods, B. Sullivan, B. Bergman, C. Jablonicky,
Leach, M., B. Reyers, X. Bai, E.S. Brondizio, C. Cook, S. Dı́az, G. A. Roan, M. Hirshfield, K. Boerder, and B. Worm. 2016. Ending
Espindola, M. Scobie, et al. 2018. Equity and sustainability in hide and seek at sea: new technologies could revolutionize ocean
the Anthropocene: A social-ecological systems perspective on observation. Science 351: 1148–1150.
their intertwined futures. Global Sustainability 1: e13. McWethy, D.B., T. Schoennagel, P.E. Higuera, M. Krawchuk, B.J.
Lenton, T.M. 2016. Earth system science. Oxford: Oxford University Harvey, E.C. Metcalf, C. Schultz, C. Miller, et al. 2019.
Press. Rethinking resilience to wildfire. Nature Sustainability 2:
Lenton, T.M., J. Rockström, O. Gaffney, S. Rahmstorf, K. Richard- 797–804.
son, W. Steffen, and H.J. Schellnhuber. 2019. Climate tipping Merçon, J., S. Vetter, M. Tengö, M. Cocks, P. Balvanera, J.A. Rosell,
points: too risky to bet against. Nature 575: 592–595. and B. Ayala-Orozco. 2019. From local landscapes to interna-
Levin, S.A., T. Xepapadeas, A.-S. Crepin, J. Norberg, A. de Zeeuw, C. tional policy: Contributions of the biocultural paradigm to global
Folke, T. Hughes, K. Arrow, et al. 2013. Social-ecological systems sustainability. Global Sustainability 2: 1–11.
as complex adaptive systems: Modeling and policy implications? Meyfroidt, P., R.R. Chowdhury, A. de Bremond, E.C. Ellis, K.H. Erb,
Environment and Development Economics 18: 111–132. T. Filatova, R.D. Garrett, J.M. Grove, et al. 2018. Middle-range
Levin, S.A. 1999. Fragile dominion: Complexity and the commons. theories of land system change. Global Environmental Change
Cambridge MA: Helix Books. Perseus. 53: 52–67.
Limburg, K.E., D. Breitburg, D.P. Swaney, and G. Jacinto. 2020. Moore, M.L., and M. Milkoreit. 2020. Imagination and transforma-
Ocean deoxygenation: A primer. One Earth 2: 24–29. tions to sustainable and just futures. Elementa 8: 1.
Liu, J., H. Mooney, V. Hull, S.J. Davis, J. Gaskell, T. Hertel, J. Moore, M.-L., D. Riddell, and D. Vosicano. 2015. Scaling out, up and
Lubchenco, K.C. Seto, et al. 2015. Systems integration for global deep. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship 58: 67–84.
sustainability. Science 347: 1258832. Moran, D., K. Kanemoto, M. Jiborn, R. Wood, J. Többen, and K.C.
Liu, J., W. Yang, and S.X. Li. 2016. Framing ecosystem services in Seto. 2018. Carbon footprints of 13,000 cities. Environmental
the telecoupled Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Research Letters 13: 064041.
Environment 14: 27–36. Mori, A.S., T. Furukawa, and T. Sasaki. 2013. Response diversity
Loorbach, D., N. Frantzeskaki, and F. Avelino. 2017. Sustainability determines the resilience of ecosystems to environmental
transitions research: Transforming science and practice for change. Biological Reviews 88: 349–364.
societal change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources Morton, J.F. 2007. The impact of climate change on smallholder and
42: 599–626. subsistence agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Lovejoy, T.E., and L. Hannah. 2018. Avoiding the climate failsafe Sciences, USA 104: 19680–19685.
point. Science Advances 4: eaau9981. Mounier, A., and M.M. Lahr. 2019. Deciphering African late middle
Lovejoy, T.E., and C. Nobre. 2018. Amazon tipping point. Sciences Pleistocene hominin diversity and the origin of our species.
Advances 4: eaat2340 Nature Communications 10: 3406.
Lubchenco, J., and K. Grorud-Colvert. 2015. Making waves: The Myers, S.S., and J.J. Patz. 2009. Emerging threats to human health
science and politics of ocean protection. Science 350: 382–383. from global environmental change. Annual Review of Environ-
Lubchenco, J., and S.D. Gaines. 2019. A new narrative for the ocean. ment and Resources 34: 223–252.
Science 364: 911. Naeem, S., J.C. Ingram, A. Varga, T. Agardy, P. Barten, G. Bennett,
Lubchenco, J., E.B. Cerny-Chipman, J.N. Reimer, and S.A. Levin. E. Bloomgarden, L.L. Bremer, et al. 2015. Get the science right
2016. The right incentives enable ocean sustainability successes when paying for nature’s services. Science 347: 1206–1207.
and provide hope for the future. Proceedings of the National Nash, K.L., N.A. Graham, S. Jennings, S.K. Wilson, and D.R.
Academy of Sciences, USA 113: 14507–14514. Bellwood. 2016. Herbivore cross-scale redundancy supports
Mace, G.M. 2014. Whose conservation? Science 345: 1558–1560. response diversity and promotes coral reef resilience. Journal of
Mace, G.M., B. Reyers, R. Alkemade, R. Biggs, F.S. Chapin III., S.E. Applied Ecology 53: 646–655.
Cornell, S. Dı́az, S. Jennings, et al. 2014. Approaches to defining Neukom, R., N. Steiger, J.J. Gómez-Navarro, J. Wang, and J.P.
a planetary boundary for biodiversity. Global Environmental Werner. 2019. No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold
Change 28: 289–297. periods over the preindustrial Common Era. Nature 571:
Mach, K.J., C.M. Kraan, W.N. Adger, H. Buhaug, M. Burke, J.D. 550–572.
Fearon, C.B. Field, C.S. Hendrix, et al. 2019. Climate as a risk Newbold, T., L.N. Hudson, S. Contu, S.L.L. Hill, J. Beck, Y. Liu, C.
factor for armed conflict. Nature 571: 193–197. Meyer, H.R.P. Philips, et al. 2018. Widespread winners and
Maharani, C.D., M. Moelionon, G.Y. Wong, M. Brockhaus, R. narrow-ranged losers: Land use homogenizes biodiversity in
Carmenta, and M. Kallio. 2019. Development and equity: A local assemblages worldwide. PLOS Biology 16: e2006841.
gendered inquiry in a swidden landscape. Forest Policy and Newbold, T., L.N. Hudson, A.P. Arnell, S. Contu, A. De Palma, S.
Economics 101: 120–128. Ferrier, S.L.L. Hill, A.J. Hoskins, et al. 2016. Has land use
Mandle, L., J. Salzman, and G.C. Daily, eds. 2019. Green Growth that pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A
works: Natural capital policy and finance mechanisms from global assessment. Science 353: 288–291.
around the world. Washington DC: Island Press. Norström, A.V., C. Cvitanovic, M.F. Löf, S. West, C. Wyborn, P.
Marshall, N.A., S.E. Park, W.N. Adger, K. Brown, and S.M. Howden. Balvanera, A.T. Bednarek, E.M. Bennett, et al. 2020. Principles
2012. Transformational capacity and the influence of place and for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature
identity. Environmental Research Letters 7: 034022. Sustainability 3: 182–190.

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
Nyborg, K., J.M. Anderies, A. Dannenberg, T. Lindahl, C. Schill, M. Pereira, L.M., T. Karpouzoglou, N. Frantzeskaki, and P. Olsson.
Schluter, W.N. Adger, K.J. Arrow, et al. 2016. Social norms as 2018. Designing transformative spaces for sustainability in
solutions: policies may influence large-scale behavioral tipping. social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 23: 32.
Science 354: 42–43. Pereira, L., E. Bennett, R. Biggs, G. Peterson, T. McPhearson, et al.
Nyström, M., J.-B. Jouffray, A. Norström, P.S. Jørgensen, V. Galaz, B.E. 2018. Seeds of the future in the present: Exploring pathways for
Crona, S.R. Carpenter, and C. Folke. 2019. Anatomy and resilience navigating towards ‘‘Good’’ anthropocenes. In Urban planet:
of the global production ecosystem. Nature 575: 98–108. Knowledge towards sustainable cities, ed. T. Elmqvist, X. Bai,
O’Brien, K. 2012. Global environmental change II: From adaptation N. Frantzeskaki, et al., 327–350. Cambridge: Cambridge
to deliberate transformation. Progress in Human Geography 36: University Press.
667–676. Perino, A., H.M. Pereira, L.M. Navarro, N. Fernández, J.M. Bullock,
O’Brien, K. 2015. Political agency: The key to tackling climate S. Ceausu, A. Cortés-Avizanda, R. van Klink, et al. 2019.
change. Science 350: 1170–1171. Rewilding complex ecosystems. Science 364: eaav5570.
O’Neill, D.W., A.L. Fanning, W.F. Lamb, and J.K. Steinberger. 2018. Peterson, G., C.R. Allen, and C.S. Holling. 1998. Ecological
A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nature resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1: 6–18.
Sustainability 1: 88–95. Petit, J., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkow, I. Basile, M. Bender, J.
Odum, E.P. 1989. Ecology and our endangered life-support systems. Chappelaz, M. Davis, et al. 1999. Climate and atmospheric
Sunderland, MA: Sinauer. history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core,
Olsson, P., C. Folke, and T. Hahn. 2004. Social-ecological transfor- Antarctica. Nature 399: 429–436.
mation for ecosystem management: The development of adap- Phillips, C.A., A. Caldas, R. Cleetus, K.A. Dahl, J. Declet-Barreto, R.
tive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Licker, L. Delta Merner, et al. 2020. Compound climate risk in
Ecology and Society 9: 2. the COVID-19 pandemics. Nature Climate Change 10: 586–588.
Olsson, P., L.H. Gunderson, S.R. Carpenter, P. Ryan, L. Lebel, C. Pickering, J., and Å. Persson. 2020. Democratising planetary bound-
Folke, and C.S. Holling. 2006. Shooting the rapids: Navigating aries: Experts, social values and deliberative risk evaluation in
transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Earth system governance. Journal of Environmental Policy &
Ecology and Society 11: 8. Planning 22: 59–71.
Olsson, P., M.-L. Moore, F.R. Westley, and D.D.P. McCarthy. 2017. Pigford, A.A., G. Hickey, and L. Klerkx. 2018. Beyond agricultural
The concept of the Anthropocene as a game-changer: A new innovation systems? exploring an agricultural innovation ecosys-
context for social innovation and transformations to sustainabil- tems approach for niche design and development in sustainabil-
ity. Ecology and Society 22: 31. ity transitions. Agricultural Systems 164: 116–121.
Oppenheimer, S. 2004. Out of Eden: The Peopling of the World. Pihl, E., M.A. Martin, T. Blome, S. Hebden, M.P. Jarzebski, R.A.
London, UK: Little, Brown Book Group. Lambino, C. Köhler, and J.G. Canadell. 2019. 10 New insights in
Ortiz, A.M., C.L. Outhwaite, C. Dalin, and T. Newbold. 2021. A climate science 2019. Stockholm: Future Earth & The Earth
review of the interactions between biodiversity, agriculture, League.
climate change, and international trade: Research and policy Piketty, T. 2014. Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA:
priorities. One Earth 4: 88–101. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Österblom, H., J.-B. Jouffray, C. Folke, and J. Rockström. 2017. Plummer, R., J. Baird, S. Farhad, and S. Witkowski. 2020. How do
Emergence of a global science–business initiative for ocean biosphere stewards actively shape trajectories of social-ecolog-
stewardship. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, ical change? Journal of Environmental Management 261:
USA 114: 9038–9043. 110139.
Österblom, H., C.C.C. Wabnitz, D. Tladi, E.H. Allison, S. Arnaud Polasky, S., B. Bryant, P. Hawthorne, J. Johnson, B. Keeler, and D.
Haond, et al. 2019. Towards ocean equity. Washington, DC: Pennington. 2015. Inclusive wealth as a metric of sustainable
World Resources Institute. development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 40:
Österblom, H., J.-B. Jouffray, C. Folke, B. Crona, M. Troell, A. 445–446.
Merrie, and J. Rockström. 2015. Transnational corporations as Polasky, S., S.R. Carpenter, C. Folke, and B. Keeler. 2011. Decision-
keystone actors in marine ecosystem. PLoS ONE 10: e0127 making under great uncertainty: Environmental management in
533. an era of global change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26:
Ostrom, E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. 398–404.
Proceeding of the Natural Academy of Sciences, USA 104: Poli, R. 2017. Introduction to Anticipation Studies. Berlin, Germany:
15181–15187. Springer.
Ostrom, E. 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective Pörtner, H.-O., D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M.
action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegrı́a, et al. (eds.).
Change 20: 550–557. 2019. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a
Otto, I.M., J.F. Donges, R. Cremades, A. Bhowmik, R.J. Hewitt, W. Changing Climate.
Lucht, J. Rockström, F. Allerberger, et al. 2020. Social tipping Quinlan, A.E., M. Berbés-Blázquez, L.J. Haider, and G.D. Peterson.
dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050. Proceedings of 2015. Measuring and assessing resilience: Broadening under-
the National Academy of Sciences USA 117: 2354–2365. standing through multiple disciplinary perspectives. Journal of
Ouyang, Z., H. Zheng, Y. Xiao, S. Polasky, J. Liu, W. Xu, Q. Wang, Applied Ecology 23: 677–687.
L. Zhang, et al. 2016. Improvements in ecosystem services from Rao, N., C. Singh, D. Solomon, L. Camfield, R. Sidiki, M. Angula, P.
investments in natural capital. Science 352: 1455–1459. Poonacha, A. Sidibé, and E.T. Lawson. 2020. Managing risk,
Page, S.E., F. Siegert, J.O. Rieley, H.-D.V. Boehm, A. Jayak, and S. changing aspirations and household dynamics: Implications for
Limink. 2002. The amount of carbon released from peat and wellbeing and adaptation in semi-arid Africa and India. World
forest fires in Indonesia during 1997. Nature 420: 61–65. Development 125: 104667.
Pennycook, G., and D.G. Rand. 2019. Fighting misinformation on Rathwell, K.J., and G.D. Peterson. 2012. Connecting social networks
social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source with ecosystem services for watershed governance: A social-
quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA ecological network perspective highlights the critical role of
116: 2521–2526. bridging organizations. Ecology and Society 17: 24.

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
Raworth, K. 2012. A safe and just space for humanity: can we live Schill, C., J.M. Anderies, T. Lindahl, C. Folke, S. Polasky, J.C.
within the doughnut? Oxfam Discussion Papers, February 2012. Cárdenas, A.-S. Crépin, M.A. Janssen, et al. 2019. A more
Raymond, C.M., I. Fazey, M.S. Reed, L.C. Stringer, G.M. Robinson, dynamic understanding of human behaviour for the Anthro-
and A.C. Evely. 2010. Integrating local and scientific knowledge pocene. Nature Sustainability 2: 1075–1082.
for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Schlüter, M., L.J. Haider, S. Lade, E. Lindkvist, R. Martin, K. Orach,
Management 91: 1766–1777. N. Wijermans, and C. Folke. 2019. Capturing emergent
Reichstein, M., G. Camps-Valls, B. Stevens, M. Jung, J. Denzler, and phenomena in social-ecological systems: An analytical frame-
N.P. Carvalhais. 2019. Deep learning and process understanding work. Ecology and Society 24: 11.
for data-driven Earth system science. Nature 566: 195–204. Schmidheiny, S., with the Business Council for Sustainable Devel-
Reyers, B., and E.R. Selig. 2020. Global targets that reveal the social- opment. 1992. Changing Course: A Global Business Perspective
ecological interdependencies of sustainable development. Nature on Development and the Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Ecology & Evolution 4: 1011–1019. Press
Reyers, B., R. Biggs, G.S. Cumming, T. Elmqvist, A.P. Hejnowicz, Schultz, L., C. Folke, H. Österblom, and P. Olsson. 2015. Adaptive
and S. Polasky. 2013. Getting the measure of ecosystem governance, ecosystem management and natural capital. Pro-
services: A social-ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 112:
and Evolution 11: 268–273. 7369–7374.
Reyers, B., J.L. Nel, P.J. O’Farrell, N. Sitas, and D.C. Nel. 2015. Seto, K.C., A. Reenberg, C.G. Boone, M. Fragkias, D. Haase, T.
Navigating complexity through knowledge coproduction: Main- Langanke, P. Marcotullio, D.K. Munroe, et al. 2012. Urban land
streaming ecosystem services into disaster risk reduction. teleconnections and sustainability. Proceedings of the National
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 112: Academy of Sciences, USA 109: 7687–7692.
7362–7368. Seto, K., B. Guneralp, and L. Hutyra. 2012. Global forecasts of urban
Reyers, B., C. Folke, M.-L. Moore, R. Biggs, and V. Galaz. 2018. expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon
Social-ecological systems insights for navigating the dynamics pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA
of the Anthropocene. Annual Review of Environment and 109: 16083–16088.
Resources 43: 267–289. Seto, K.C., S. Dhakal, A. Bigio, H. Blanco, G.C. Delgado, et al. 2014.
Rocha, J.C., G. Peterson, Ö. Bodin, and S. Levin. 2018. Cascading Human Settlements, Infrastructure and Spatial Planning. In
regime shifts within and across scales. Science 362: 1379–1383. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contri-
Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F.S. Chapin III., bution of Working Group III to the IPCC Fifth Assessment
E.F. Lambin, T.M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, et al. 2009. A safe Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472–475. Singh, C., L. Wang-Erlandsson, I. Fetzer, J. Rockström, and R. van
Rockström, J., O. Gaffney, J. Rogelj, M. Meinshausen, N. Nakicen- der Ent. 2020. Rootzone storage capacity reveals drought coping
ovic, and H.J. Schellnhuber. 2017. A roadmap for rapid strategies along rainforest-savanna transitions. Environmental
decarbonization: Emissions inevitably approach zero with a Research Letters 15: 124021.
‘‘carbon law.’’ Science 355: 1269–1271. Soliveres, S., F. van der Plas, P. Manning, D. Prati, M.M. Gossner,
Roe, S., C. Streck, M. Obersteiner, S. Frank, B. Griscom, L. Drouet, S.C. Renner, F. Alt, H. Arndt, et al. 2016. Biodiversity at
O. Fricko, M. Gusti, et al. 2019. Contribution of the land sector multiple trophic levels is needed for ecosystem multifunction-
to a 1.5°C world. Nature Climate Change 9: 817–828. ality. Nature 536: 456–459.
Rogelj, J., M. den Elzen, N. Hohne, T. Fransen, H. Fekete, H. Staver, C.A., S. Archibald, and S.A. Levin. 2011. The global extent
Winkler, R. Schaeffer, F. Sha, et al. 2016. Paris Agreement and determinants of savanna and forest as alternative biome
climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 states. Science 334: 230–232.
degrees C. Nature 534: 631–639. Steffen, W., K. Richardson, J. Rockström, S.E. Cornell, I. Fetzer,
Sachs, J.D., G. Schmidt-Traub, M. Mazzucato, D. Messner, N. E.M. Bennett, R. Biggs, S.R. Carpenter, et al. 2015. Planetary
Nakicenovic, and J. Rockström. 2019. Six transformations to boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet.
achieve the sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability Science 347: 6223.
2: 805–814. Steffen, W., J. Rockström, K. Richardson, T.M. Lenton, C. Folke, D.
Saez, E., and G. Zucman. 2016. Wealth inequality in the United States Liverman, C.P. Summerhayes, A.D. Barnosky, et al. 2018.
since 1913: Evidence from capitalized income tax data. Quar- Trajectories of the Earth system in the Anthropocene. Proceed-
terly Journal of Economics 131: 519–578. ings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 115: 8252–8259.
Sakschewski, B., W. von Bloh, A. Boit, L. Poorter, Ma.. Peña-Claros, Steffen, W., K. Richardson, J. Rockström, H.J. Schellnhuber, O.P.
J. Heinke, J. Joshi, and K. Thonicke. 2016. Resilience of Dube, T.M. Lenton, and J. Lubchenco. 2020. The emergence and
Amazon forests emerges from plant trait diversity. Nature evolution of Earth System Science. Nature Reviews 1: 54–63.
Climate Change 6: 1032–1036. Steinert-Threlkeld, Z.C., D. Mocanu, A. Vespignani, and J. Fowler.
Sala, E., C. Costello, J.D. Parme, M. Fiorese, G. Heal, K. Kelleher, R. 2015. Online social networks and offline protest. EPJ Data
Moffitt, L. Morgan, et al. 2016. Fish banks: An economic model Science 4: 19.
to scale marine conservation. Marine Policy 73: 154–161. Sterner, T., E.B. Barbier, I. Bateman, I. van den Bijgaart, A.-S.
Scheffer, M., S.R. Carpenter, T.M. Lenton, J. Bascompte, W. Brock, Crépin, O. Edenhofer, C. Fischer, W. Habla, et al. 2019. Policy
V. Dakos, J. van de Koppel, I.A. van de Leemput, et al. 2012. design for the Anthropocene. Nature Sustainability 2: 14–21.
Anticipating critical transitions. Science 338: 344–348. Stewart, A.J., M. Mosleh, M. Diakonova, A.A. Arechar, and D.G.
Scheffer, M., S. Barrett, S. Carpenter, C. Folke, A.J. Greene, M. Rand. 2019. Information gerrymandering and undemocratic
Holmgren, T.P. Hughes, S. Kosten, et al. 2015. Creating a safe decisions. Nature 573: 117–121.
operating space for the world’s iconic ecosystems. Science 347: Stiglitz, J.E. 2012. The price of inequality. New York: W.W. Norton.
1317–1319. Stiglitz, J.E. 2020. Conquering the great divide. Finance & Devel-
Scheffer, M., B. Bavel, I.A. van de Leemput, and E.H. van Nes. 2017. opment, September 2020: 17–19.
Inequality in nature and society. Proceedings of the National Stuchtey, M., A. Vincent, A. Merkl, M. Bucher, P. Haugen, et al.
Academy of Sciences, USA 114: 13154–13157. 2020. Ocean solutions that benefit people, nature and the

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
economy. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. www. van der Leeuw, S.E. 2019. Social sustainability past and present:
oceanpanel.org/ocean-solutions. undoing unintended consequences for the Earth’s survival.
Sukhdev, P., H. Wittmer, C. Schröter-Schlaack, C. Nesshöver, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bishop, et al. 2010. Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A van der Leeuw, S.E. 2020. The role of narratives in human-
Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations environmental relations: an essay on elaborating win-win
of TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity solutions to climate change and sustainability. Climatic Change
(TEEB). www.teebweb.org/our-publications/teeb-study-reports/ 160: 509–519.
synthesis-report/ van Oldenborgh, G.J., F. Krikken, S. Lewis, N.J. Leach, F. Lehner,
Sumaila, U.R., V.W.Y. Lam, J.D. Miller, L. Teh, R.A. Watson, D. K.R. Saynders, M. van Weele, K. Haustein, et al. 2020.
Zeller, W.W.L. Cheung, et al. 2015. Winners and losers in a world Attribution of the Australian bushfire risk to anthropogenic
where the high seas is closed to fishing. Scientific Reports 5: 8481. climate change. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences.
Sumaila, U.R., M. Walsh, K. Hoareau, A. Cox, et al. 2020. Ocean https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2020-69.
finance: Financing the transition to a sustainable ocean Vandenbergh, M.P., and J.M. Gilligan. 2017. Beyond politics: The
economy. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. private governance response to climate change. Cambridge:
www.oceanpanel.org/bluepapers/ocean-finance-financing-transi- Cambridge University Press.
tion-sustainable-ocean-economy. Vang Rasmussen, L., B. Coolsaet, A. Martin, O. Mertz, U. Pascual, E.
Tallis, H.M., P.L. Hawthorne, S. Polasky, J. Reid, M.W. Beck, K. Corbera, N. Dawson, J.A. Fischer, et al. 2018. Social-ecological
Brauman, J.M. Bielicki, S. Binder, et al. 2018. An attainable outcomes of agricultural Intensification. Nature Sustainability 1:
global vision for conservation and human well-being. Frontiers 275–282.
in Ecology and the Environment 16: 563–570. Walker, B.H. 2019. Finding resilience. Canberra: CSIRO Press.
Tamea, S., F. Laio, and L. Ridolfi. 2016. Global effects of local food Walker, B.H., N. Abel, J.M. Anderies, and P. Ryan. 2009. Resilience,
production crises: A virtual water perspective. Scientific Reports adaptability, and transformability in the Goulburn-Broken
6: 18803. Catchment Australia. Ecology and Society 14: 12.
Tengö, M., E.S. Brondizio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, and M. Walter, N., J. Cohen, R.L. Holbert, and Y. Morag. 2019. Fact-
Spierenburg. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for checking: a meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Political
enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base Communication 37: 350–375.
approach. Ambio 43: 579–591. Wang-Erlandsson, L., I. Fetzer, P.W. Keys, R.J. van der Ent, H.H.G.
Tengö, M., R. Hill, P. Malmer, C.M. Raymond, M. Spierenburg, F. Savenije, and L.J. Gordon. 2018. Remote land use impacts on
Danielsen, T. Elmqvist, and C. Folke. 2017. Weaving knowledge river flows through atmospheric teleconnections. Hydrology and
systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond: Lessons learned for Earth System Sciences 22: 4311–4328.
sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability Waring, T.M., M.A. Kline, J.S. Brooks, S.H. Goff, J. Gowdy, M.A.
26–27: 17–25. Janssen, P.E. Smaldino, and J. Jacquet. 2015. A multilevel
Tilman, D., F. Isbell, and J.M. Cowles. 2014. Biodiversity and evolutionary framework for sustainability analysis. Ecology and
ecosystem functioning. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, Society 20: 34.
and Systematics 45: 471–493. Wearn, O.R., R. Freeman, and D.M.P. Jacoby. 2019. Responsible AI
Tittensor, D.P., M. Berger, K. Boerder, D.G. Boyce, R.D. Cavanagh, for conservation. Nature Machine Intelligence 1: 72–73.
A. Cosandey-Godin, G.O. Crespo, D.C Dunn, et al. 2019. Weber, E.U. 2015. Climate change demands behavioral change: What
Integrating climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation in are the challenges? Social Research 82: 561–581.
the global ocean. Science Advances 5: eaay9969 Weber, E.U. 2017. Breaking cognitive barriers to a sustainable future.
Tu, C., S. Suweis, and P. D’Odorico. 2019. Impact of globalization on Nature Human Behavior 1: 0013.
the resilience and sustainability of natural resources. Nature Weber, E.U. 2020. Heads in the sand: why we fail to foresee and
Sustainability 2: 283–289. contain catastrophe. Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec
Turco, M., J.J. Rosa-Cánovas, J. Bedia, S. Jerez, J.P. Montávez, M.C. Weber, E.U., and E.J. Johnson. 2016. Can we think of the future?
Llasat, and A. Provenzale. 2018. Exacerbated fires in Mediter- Cognitive barriers to future-oriented thinking. In Global coop-
ranean Europe due to anthropogenic warming projected with eration and the human factor, ed. D. Messner and S. Weinlich,
nonstationary climate-fire models. Nature Communications 9: 139–154. New York, NY: Routledge.
3821. Westley, F., P. Olsson, C. Folke, T. Homer-Dixon, H. Vredenburg, D.
UN DESA. 2018. The 2018 Revision of World Urbanization Loorbach, J. Thompson, M. Nilsson, et al. 2011. Tipping toward
Prospects produced by the Population Division of the UN sustainability: Emerging pathways of transformation. Ambio 40:
Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) United 762–780.
Nations, New York. Westley, F., O. Tjörnbo, L. Schultz, P. Olsson, C. Folke, B. Crona,
UN. 2019. The 2019 Revision of World Population Prospects. The and Ö. Bodin. 2013. A theory of transformative agency in linked
Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18: 27.
Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, United Nations, New Westley, F., K. McGowan, and O. Tjornbo, eds. 2017. The Evolution
York. of social innovation. London: Edward Elgar Press.
UNDP. 2019. United Nations Development Program. 2019. World Wibeck, V., B.-O. Linnér, M. Alves, T. Asplund, A. Bohman,
Development Report 2019. Beyond Income, Beyond Averages, M.T. Boykoff, P.M. Feetham, Y. Huang, et al. 2019. Stories
Beyond Today: Inequalities in Human Development in the 21st of transformation: a cross-country focus group study on
Century. New York: United Nations. sustainable development and societal change. Sustainability
UNGC. 2020. Pretlove, B. Ocean Stewardship 2030-Ten ambitions 11: 2427.
and recommendations for growing sustainble ocean busines. Willeit, M., A. Ganopolski, R. Calov, and V. Brovkin. 2019. Mid-
United Nations Global Compact, New York Pleistocene transition in glacial cycles explained by declining
UN-Habitat. 2016. The widening urban divide. Chapter four in CO2 and regolith removal. Science Advances 5: eaav7337.
Urbanisation and Development: Emerging Futures. World Cities Willett, W., J. Rockström, B. Loken, M. Springmann, T. Lang, S.
Report. 2016. United Nations Human Settlements Programme Vermeulen, T. Garnett, D. Tilman, et al. 2019. Food in the
(UN-Habitat). Kenya: Nairobi. Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio
from sustainable food systems. The Lancet Commission 393: Stephen Polasky is Professor at the Department of Applied Eco-
447–492. nomics, and the Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior,
Williams, H.T.P., J.R. McMurray, T. Kurz, and F.H. Lambert. 2015. University of Minnesota.
Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in Address: University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.
social media discussions of climate change. Global Environ-
mental Change 32: 126–138. Johan Rockström is Professor and Director of the Potsdam Institute
WMO. 2020. World meteorological organization state of the global for Climate Impact Research.
climate 2020, provisional report. Geneva: WMO. Address: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam,
Wood, S.A., M.R. Smith, J. Fanzo, R. Remans, and R. DeFries. 2018. Germany.
Trade and the equitability of global food nutrient distribution.
Nature Sustainability 1: 34–37. Victor Galaz is Associate Professor and Deputy Director of the
World Bank. 2019. Poverty. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/ Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University and programme
poverty/overview director at the Beijer Institute, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
World Inequality Report. 2018. https://wir2018.wid.world, UNESCO Address: Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University,
Publ. Paris. Stockholm, Sweden.
Worm, B., E.B. Barbier, N. Beaumont, J.E. Duffy, C. Folke, B.S.
Halpern, J.B.C. Jackson, H.K. Lotze, et al. 2006. Impacts of Frances Westley is Professor at the the Waterloo Institute for Social
biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314: Innovation and Resilience, and School for Environment, Enterprise
787–790. and Development, the University of Waterloo.
Worm, B., R. Hilborn, J.K. Baum, T.A. Branch, J.S. Collie, C. Address: University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Costello, M.J. Fogarty, E.A. Fulton, et al. 2009. Rebuilding
global fisheries. Science 325: 578–585. Michèle Lamont is Professor at the Department of Sociology and
WRI. 2020. 4 Charts explain greenhouse gas emissions by countries Director of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard
and sectors. Washington DC: World Resources Institute. University.
Wyborn, C., A. Datta, J. Montana, M. Ryan, P. Leith, B. Chaffin, C. Address: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Miller, and L. van Kerkhoff. 2019. Co-producing sustainability:
reordering the governance of science, policy, and practice. Marten Scheffer is Professor at the Department of Environmental
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44: 319–346. Sciences, Wageningen University and Research.
Xu, C., T.A. Kohler, T.M. Lenton, J.-C. Svenning, and M. Scheffer. Address: Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The
2020. Future of the human climate niche. Proceedings of the Netherlands.
National Academy of Sciences, USA 117: 11350–11355.
Yin, J., P. Gentine, S. Zhou, S.C. Sullivan, R. Wang, Y. Zhang, and S. Henrik Österblom is Professor and Science Director of the Stock-
Guo. 2018. Large increase in global storm runoff extremes holm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University.
driven by climate and anthropogenic changes. Nature Commu- Address: Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University,
nications 9: 4389. Stockholm, Sweden.
Yoeli, E., D.V. Budescu, A.R. Carrico, M.A. Delmas, J.R. DeShazo,
P.J. Ferraro, H.A. Forster, H. Kunreuther, et al. 2017. Behavioral Stephen R. Carpenter is Professor Emeritus at the Center for Lim-
science tools to strengthen energy and environmental policy. nology, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Behavioural Science and Policy 3: 69–79. Address: University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Zalasiewicz, J., M. Williams, C.N. Waters, A.D. Barnosky, J.
Palmesino, A.-S. Rönnskog, M. Edgeworth, C. Neal, et al. F. Stuart Chapin III is Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Arctic
2017. Scale and diversity of the physical technosphere: A Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
geological perspective. The Anthropocene Review 4: 9–22. Address: University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK, USA.
Zemp, D.C., C.F. Schleussner, H.M.J. Barbosa, M. Hirota, V.
Montade, G. Sampaio, A. Staal, L. Wang-Erlandsson, et al. Karen C. Seto is Professor at the School of the Environment, Yale
2017. Self-amplified Amazon forest loss due to vegetation- University.
atmosphere feedbacks. Nature Communications 8: 1468. Address: Yale University, New Haven, USA.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to Elke U. Weber is Professor at the Andlinger Center for Energy and
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Environment, and Department of Psychology, Princeton University.
Address: Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES Beatrice I. Crona is Executive Director of the Global Economic
Carl Folke (&) is Professor and Director of the Beijer Institute of Dynamics and the Biosphere Programme, Royal Swedish Academy of
Ecological Economics of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Sciences and Associate Professor at the Stockholm Resilience Centre,
He is also Chair of the Board and Science Director of the Stockholm Stockholm University.
Resilience Centre at Stockholm University. Address: Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere Programme
Address: Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish (GEDB), Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.
Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden. Address: Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University,
Address: Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere Programme Stockholm, Sweden.
(GEDB), Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.
Address: Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Gretchen C. Daily is Professor at Department of Biology, Director of
Stockholm, Sweden. the Center for Conservation Biology, and Faculty Director of the
e-mail: [email protected] Stanford Natural Capital Project, Stanford University.
Address: Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
Partha Dasgupta is Professor Emeritus at the Faculty of Economics, Simon A. Levin is Professor at the Department of Ecology and
University of Cambridge. Evolutionary Biology and Director of the Center for BioComplexity,
Address: University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Princeton University.
Address: Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Owen Gaffney is a global sustainability analyst and writer at Pots-
dam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Stockholm Resilience Jane Lubchenco is Distinguished University Professor, Oregon State
Centre, Stockholm University. University.
Address: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Address: Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.
Germany.
Address: Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Will Steffen is Emeritus Professor, Fenner School of Environment
Stockholm, Sweden. and Society, Australian National University.
Address: Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Line J. Gordon is Professor and Director of the Stockholm Resi- Address: Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University,
lience Centre, Stockholm University. Stockholm, Sweden.
Address: Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University,
Stockholm, Sweden. Brian H. Walker is Professor and Fellow at Australia’s CSIRO Land
and Water.
Holger Hoff is Senior Scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Address: CSIRO, Canberra, Australia.
Impact Research.
Address: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam,
Germany.

123 www.kva.se/en

Our Future in The Anthropocene Biosphere

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Our Future in The Anthropocene Biosphere

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Our Future in The Anthropocene Biosphere

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ambio

Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere

Received: 25 November 2020 / Revised: 31 January 2021 / Accepted: 10 February 2021

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed an INTRODUCTION

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

SOCIETAL TRANSFORMATION development on the ground (Brown 2016), support trans-

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

Ó The Author(s) 2021

You might also like