Ever since the book, Limits to Growth, was published over 40 years ago, environmentalists have argued that continued growth is unsustainable. But in the face of rapid economic development and resource use, how do we know if we are approaching a limit? A few years ago, Joachim Rockström and colleagues reviewed (2009) the limits to the use of natural environmental systems at the scale of the whole planet. They argued that global society had already moved out of a ‘safe operating space’ for climate, biodiversity and nitrogen. In other words, we had pushed the atmosphere and biosphere over a boundary to a point where nasty surprises are possible – unpredictable changes, failure of natural systems to recover from impacts, or even their total collapse.
A recent research article by John Dearing and colleagues applies the ideas of safe operating spaces and limits to low income, rural agricultural communities where people are to some extent dependent on their local environment to provide food and water. They also include a review of social conditions so that it is possible to link any efforts to alleviate poverty or raise health standards to the use of the surrounding environment. They define a ‘social foundation’ from about 10 social conditions, like access to education, health care, drinking water, and sanitation, identified internationally as the expected norms for everybody.
Figure. Safe and just operating spaces mapped for two Chinese regions in 2006. (a) Erhai lake-catchment system, Yunnan Province; (b) Shucheng County, Anhui Province. The figures show the extent to which each region currently meets expected social standards (blue sectors) for an acceptable social foundation (green circle), and the current status of key ecological services/processes: safe (green sectors), cautious (yellow sectors) and dangerous (red). The environmental ceiling (red circle) defines the approximate boundary between sustainable and unsustainable use of ecological processes. The safe and just operating space exists as a ‘doughnut’ between the environmental ceiling and social foundation.
Similarly, an ‘environmental ceiling’ defines the upper limits for a range of ecological conditions , like biodiversity, air quality, water quality and soil stability that are viewed as essential for maintaining local forestry, agriculture, and fisheries. Using these two ideas, they define a ‘safe and just operating space’ as lying between the ‘social foundation’ and the ‘environmental ceiling’ where people would have an acceptable quality of life within a natural environment that is ecologically sustainable. At the heart of the approach is a new classification of safe and dangerous limits for different ecological conditions based on analyses of time-series of data records according to complexity science principles, like tipping points. In some regions, lake sediment records are used as a substitute for long data records which may not always be available.
Working in two rural Chinese counties the authors show that many social conditions almost reach the expected ‘social foundation’ as defined by the local authorities, but the standards for water/sanitation, in particular, fall well short. In both counties, the ecological status of water is poor – it has exceeded the ecologically safe limits on pollution - meaning that the current operating space for the general management of water has moved from a safe to dangerous space. The new approach highlights the importance of developing water treatment plants, sewage disposal facilities and piped water in conjunction with careful management of natural water resources, non-point pollution sources and fisheries. Only then can the villages in these communities develop sustainably within ‘safe and just operating spaces’.
You can also read a related article "Sustainable development must be doughnut-shaped" published on The Conversation.
Here's the link:
http://theconversation.com/sustainable-development-must-be-doughnut-shaped-31495
References
Meadows, D.H. et al 1972 The Limits to Growth, Universe Books, pp 205.
Rockström, J. et al 2009. A safe operating space for humanity, Nature 461, 472–475.
A recent research article by John Dearing and colleagues applies the ideas of safe operating spaces and limits to low income, rural agricultural communities where people are to some extent dependent on their local environment to provide food and water. They also include a review of social conditions so that it is possible to link any efforts to alleviate poverty or raise health standards to the use of the surrounding environment. They define a ‘social foundation’ from about 10 social conditions, like access to education, health care, drinking water, and sanitation, identified internationally as the expected norms for everybody.
Figure. Safe and just operating spaces mapped for two Chinese regions in 2006. (a) Erhai lake-catchment system, Yunnan Province; (b) Shucheng County, Anhui Province. The figures show the extent to which each region currently meets expected social standards (blue sectors) for an acceptable social foundation (green circle), and the current status of key ecological services/processes: safe (green sectors), cautious (yellow sectors) and dangerous (red). The environmental ceiling (red circle) defines the approximate boundary between sustainable and unsustainable use of ecological processes. The safe and just operating space exists as a ‘doughnut’ between the environmental ceiling and social foundation.
Similarly, an ‘environmental ceiling’ defines the upper limits for a range of ecological conditions , like biodiversity, air quality, water quality and soil stability that are viewed as essential for maintaining local forestry, agriculture, and fisheries. Using these two ideas, they define a ‘safe and just operating space’ as lying between the ‘social foundation’ and the ‘environmental ceiling’ where people would have an acceptable quality of life within a natural environment that is ecologically sustainable. At the heart of the approach is a new classification of safe and dangerous limits for different ecological conditions based on analyses of time-series of data records according to complexity science principles, like tipping points. In some regions, lake sediment records are used as a substitute for long data records which may not always be available.
Working in two rural Chinese counties the authors show that many social conditions almost reach the expected ‘social foundation’ as defined by the local authorities, but the standards for water/sanitation, in particular, fall well short. In both counties, the ecological status of water is poor – it has exceeded the ecologically safe limits on pollution - meaning that the current operating space for the general management of water has moved from a safe to dangerous space. The new approach highlights the importance of developing water treatment plants, sewage disposal facilities and piped water in conjunction with careful management of natural water resources, non-point pollution sources and fisheries. Only then can the villages in these communities develop sustainably within ‘safe and just operating spaces’.
You can also read a related article "Sustainable development must be doughnut-shaped" published on The Conversation.
Here's the link:
http://theconversation.com/sustainable-development-must-be-doughnut-shaped-31495
References
Meadows, D.H. et al 1972 The Limits to Growth, Universe Books, pp 205.
Rockström, J. et al 2009. A safe operating space for humanity, Nature 461, 472–475.
RSS Feed