地球界限概念框架及其研究进展

doi:10.18306/dlkxjz.2019.04.001

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

“地球界限(Planetary Boundaries)”是指用于界定“安全运行空间(safe operating space)”的边界值,是Johan Rockstr?m等近年来提出的旨在保障人类生存和发展的重要概念框架。该框架一经提出就引起了广泛关注,一方面质疑者对这一概念框架的科学意义以及评估方法提出批评;另一方面支持者则对其评估方法、研究内容和研究尺度进行了完善和扩展,并取得了重要的成果。为了促进国内学者对该领域的了解和应用,论文在回顾相关文献的基础上,首先介绍了“地球界限”的概念内涵,并将其与中国学者所熟知的环境承载力等概念进行了比较分析;随后总结了该概念框架的争议观点,同时也对其近期的发展状况进行了评述;最后结合中国目前的发展状况,分析了“地球界限”概念框架对中国可持续发展的借鉴意义,并对未来的研究提出了展望,包括① 进一步了解不同地球系统过程的相互作用机制,完善“地球界限”的指标评估体系;② 明确“地球界限”与生态系统服务以及人类福祉三者之间的内在联系;③ 结合“地球界限”的评估结果,加强变革式环境治理的研究。

关键词: 地球界限, 安全运行空间, 安全公正空间, 可持续发展

Abstract:

Planetary boundaries is a conceptual framework proposed by Johan Rockstr?m in recent years, which is aimed to build a safe operating space for safeguarding humans' survival and development. Since this framework was put forward, it has attracted widespread attention. The skeptics criticized the scientific significance and evaluation methods of the conceptual framework. However, the proponents have gradually improved its evaluation methods and research contents, and explored the downscaling results. In order to promote the understanding and application of this concept and framework, after reviewing the relevant literature we first introduced the conceptual connotation of planetary boundaries and its evaluation results, and then compared them with concepts such as environmental carrying capacity that have been well known to Chinese scholars. We also summarized the controversial views of the conceptual framework, and reviewed its recent development status. Finally, combined with China's current development situation, we analyzed the implications of the conceptual framework of planetary boundaries for China's sustainable development research, and put forward the prospect of future research, including: 1) improving the assessment system of planetary boundaries through making further exploration on the interrelationship between different Earth system processes; 2) defining the links between planetary boundaries, ecosystem services, and human well-being; 3) strengthening research on transformative environmental governance in conjunction with the assessment of planetary boundaries.

Key words: planetary boundaries, safe operating space, safe and just space, sustainable development

张军泽, 王帅, 赵文武, 刘焱序, 傅伯杰. 地球界限概念框架及其研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(4): 465-476.

Junze ZHANG, Shuai WANG, Wenwu ZHAO, Yanxu LIU, Bojie FU. Review on the conceptual framework of planetary boundaries and the development of its research[J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(4): 465-476.

图/表 5

图1

图2

表1

表2

图3

参考文献 46

[1]	方恺. 2014. 基于足迹家族和行星边界的主要国家环境可持续性多维评价[J]. 生态环境学报, 23(11): 1868-1875. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5906.2014.11.022
	[Fang K.2014. Multidimensional assessment of national environmental sustainability based on footprint family and planetary boundaries. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 23(11): 1868-1875. ] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5906.2014.11.022
[2]	封志明, 李鹏. 2018. 承载力概念的源起与发展: 基于资源环境视角的讨论[J]. 自然资源学报, 33(9): 1475-1489. doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20170967
	[Feng Z M, Li P.2018. The genesis and evolution of the concept of carrying capacity: A view of natural resources and environment. Journal of Natural Resources, 33(9): 1475-1489. ] doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20170967
[3]	刘耀林, 张扬, 张琰, 等. 2018. 特大城市“三线冲突”空间格局及影响因素[J]. 地理科学进展, 37(12): 1672-1681.
	[Liu Y L, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, et al.2018. Conflicts between three land management red lines in Wuhan City: Spatial patterns and driving factors. Progress in Geography, 37(12): 1672-1681. ]
[4]	石海佳, 许乃中, 张玉环, 等. 2018. 基于“生态保护红线、环境质量底线和资源利用上线”的区域环境管控体系构建思路: 以珠三角地区为例[J]. 环境影响评价, 40(5): 23-29.
	[Shi H J, Xu N Z, Zhang Y H, et al.2018. Regional environmental management and control system based on "Three Lines": Taking the Pearl River Delta as an example. Environmental Impact Assessment, 40(5): 23-29. ]
[5]	唐海萍, 陈姣, 薛海丽. 2015. 生态阈值: 概念、方法与研究展望[J]. 植物生态学报, 39(9): 932-940. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2015.0090
	[Tang H P, Chen J, Xue H L.2015. Ecological thresholds: Concept, methods and research outlooks. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 39(9): 932-940. ] doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2015.0090
[6]	王军, 张焕波, 刘向东, 等. 2017. 中国经济分析与展望(2016—2017): 中国可持续发展评价指标体系: 框架、验证及其分析 [M]. 北京: 社会科学文献出版社.
	[Wang J, Zhang H B, Liu X D, et al.2017. China's economic analysis and outlook (2016-2017): Evaluation index system of sustainable development in China: Framework, verification and analysis. Beijing, China: Social Sciences Academic Press. ]
[7]	闫海明, 战金艳, 张韬. 2012. 生态系统恢复力研究进展综述[J]. 地理科学进展, 31(3): 303-314. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2012.03.005
	[Yan H M, Zhan J Y, Zhang T.2012. Review of ecosystem resilience research progress. Progress in Geography, 31(3): 303-314. ] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2012.03.005
[8]	郑华, 欧阳志云. 2014. 生态红线的实践与思考[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 29(4): 457-461.
	[Zheng H, Ouyang Z Y.2014. Practice and consideration for ecological redlining. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 29(4): 457-461. ]
[9]	Andersen T, Carstensen J, Hernández-García E, et al.2009. Ecological thresholds and regime shifts: Approaches to identification[J]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(1): 49-57. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.07.014 pmid: 18952317
[10]	Barbier E B, Burgess J C.2017. Natural resource economics, planetary boundaries and strong sustainability[J]. Sustainability, 9(10): 1858. doi: 10.3390/su9101858. doi: 10.3390/su9101858
[11]	Barnosky A D, Hadly E A, Bascompte J, et al.2012. Approaching a state shift in Earth's biosphere[J]. Nature, 486: 52-58. doi: 10.1038/nature11018
[12]	Baron R.2013. The round table on sustainable development gratefully acknowledges financial support provided by the world business council on sustainable development [R]. The 29th round table on sustainable development to be held at OECD Headquarters, Paris.
[13]	Biermann F.2012. Planetary boundaries and earth system governance: Exploring the links[J]. Ecological Economics, 81: 4-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.016
[14]	Brook B W, Ellis E C, Perring M P, et al.2013. Does the terrestrial biosphere have planetary tipping points?[J]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28(7): 396-401. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.01.016 pmid: 23453050
[15]	Brown K.2017. Global environmental change II: Planetary boundaries: A safe operating space for human geographers?[J]. Progress in Human Geography, 41(1): 118-130. doi: 10.1177/0309132515604429
[16]	Bruckner T, Petschel-Held G, Leimbach M, et al.2003. Methodological aspects of the tolerable windows approach[J]. Climatic Change, 56(1-2): 73-89. doi: 10.1023/A:1021388429866
[17]	Bryan B A, Gao L, Ye Y, et al.2018. China's response to a national land-system sustainability emergency[J]. Nature, 559: 193-204. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0280-2
[18]	Cardinale B J, Duffy J E, Gonzalez A, et al.2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity[J]. Nature, 486: 59-67. doi: 10.1038/nature11148 pmid: 22678280
[19]	Castree N.2016. Anthropocene and planetary boundaries[M]// Richardson D, Castree N, Goodchild M F, et al. The international encyclopedia of geography: People, the earth, environment, and technology (161-174). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
[20]	Chaffin B C, Garmestani A S, Gunderson L H, et al.2016. Transformative environmental governance[J]. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1): 399-423. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085817
[21]	de Vries W, Kros J, Kroeze C, et al.2013. Assessing planetary and regional nitrogen boundaries related to food security and adverse environmental impacts[J]. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5: 392-402. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.004
[22]	Dearing J A, Wang R, Zhang K, et al.2014. Safe and just operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems[J]. Global Environmental Change—Human and Policy Dimensions, 28: 227-238. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.012
[23]	Defries R S, Ellis E C, Chapin F S, et al.2012. Planetary opportunities: A social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future[J]. BioScience, 62(6): 603-606. doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.6.11
[24]	Fu B J, Wang S, Su C, et al.2013. Linking ecosystem processes and ecosystem services[J]. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1): 4-10. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.12.002
[25]	Galaz V.2012. Planetary boundaries concept is valuable[J]. Nature, 486: 191.
[26]	Gerten D, Hoff H, Rockström J, et al.2013. Towards a revised planetary boundary for consumptive freshwater use: Role of environmental flow requirements[J]. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(6): 551-558. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.001
[27]	Gerten D, Rockström J, Heinke J, et al.2015. Response to Comment on "Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet"[J]. Science, 348: 1217-d. doi: 10.1126/science.aab0031.
[28]	Häyhä T, Lucas P L, van Vuuren D P, et al.2016. From Planetary Boundaries to national fair shares of the global safe operating space: How can the scales be bridged?[J]. Global Environmental Change, 40: 60-72. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.008
[29]	Jaramillo F, Destouni G.2015. Comment on "Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet"[J]. Science, 348: 1217-c. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa9629.
[30]	Leach M, Raworth K, Rockström J.2013. Between social and planetary boundaries: Navigating pathways in the safe and just space for humanity [M]// International Social Science Council and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. World social science report 2013: Changing global environments. OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing, Paris: 84-89.
[31]	Lewis S L.2012. We must set planetary boundaries wisely[J]. Nature, 485: 417. doi: 10.1038/485417a
[32]	MA. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis [M]. Washington DC: Island Press.
[33]	Montoya J M, Donohue I, Pimm S L.2018. Planetary boundaries for biodiversity: Implausible science, pernicious policies[J]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 33(2): 71-73. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2017.10.004 pmid: 29126565
[34]	Nordhaus T, Shellenberger M, Blomqvist L.2012. The planetary boundaries hypothesis: A review of the evidence [R]. Breakthrough Institute, Oakland.
[35]	O'Neill D W, Fanning A L, Lamb W F, et al.2018. A good life for all within planetary boundaries[J]. Nature Sustainability, 1(2): 88-95.
[36]	Raworth K.2012. A safe and just space for humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? [E/OL].
[37]	Rockström J, Richardson K, Steffen W, et al.2018. Planetary boundaries: Separating fact from fiction: A Response to Montoya et al[J]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 33(4): 232-233. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2018.01.010
[38]	Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, et al.2009a. A safe operating space for humanity[J]. Nature, 461: 472-475. doi: 10.1038/461472a
[39]	Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, et al.2009b. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity [J]. Ecology and Society, 14(2): 32. .
[40]	Scheffer B M, Barrett S, Carpenter S R, et al.2015. Creating a safe operating space for iconic ecosystems[J]. Science, 347: 1317-1319. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa3769
[41]	SDSN.2013. An action agenda for sustainable development: Report for the UN Secretary-General [R]. Rio de Janeiro: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
[42]	Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockstrom J, et al.2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet[J]. Science, 347: 1259855. doi: 10.1126/science. 1259855. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855
[43]	Sverdrup H U, Ragnarsdottir K V.2011. Challenging the planetary boundaries II: Assessing the sustainable global population and phosphate supply, using a systems dynamics assessment model[J]. Applied Geochemistry, 26: S307-S310. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2011.03.089
[44]	TEEB.2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations[M]. London and Washington DC: Earthscan.
[45]	Wang J, Chen Y, Shao X, et al.2012. Land-use changes and policy dimension driving forces in China: Present, trend and future[J]. Land Use Policy, 29: 737-749. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.11.010
[46]	Xu X, Tan Y, Yang G, et al.2018. China's ambitious ecological red lines[J]. Land Use Policy, 79: 447-451. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.037

地球系统过程	控制变量	地球界限(不确定性区间)	当前值
气候变化	大气CO₂浓度	350×10^-6(350×10^-6~450×10^-6)	389.5×10^-6
气候变化	大气顶层能量不平衡	1.0 W·m^-2(1.0~1.5 W·m^-2)	2.3 W·m^-2 (1.1~3.3 W·m^-2)
生物圈完整性	基因多样性(灭绝率)	<10 E/MSY(10~100 E/MSY) E/MSY为每年每100万物种灭绝数量	100~1000 E/MSY
生物圈完整性	功能多样性(生物多样性完整性指数 BII)	维持BII在90%(90%~30%)	84% (适用于南非地区)
平流层臭氧消耗	平流层臭氧浓度(DU)	<275.5 DU(261~275.5 DU)	约200 DU
海洋酸化	碳酸盐饱和度(Ω,主要指文石饱和度Ωarag)	大于工业革命前海水碳酸盐浓度的80%(80%~70%)	84%
生物地球化学循环(N、P)	全球P流动：从淡水系统流入海洋	11 Tg·a^-1(11~100 Tg·a^-1)	22 Tg·a^-1
	区域P流动：从肥料流入易受侵蚀的土壤	6.2 Tg·a^-1(6.2~11.2 Tg·a^-1)	14 Tg·a^-1
	全球N流动：工业和人工生物固氮	62 Tg·a^-1(62~82 Tg·a^-1)	150 Tg·a^-1
土地利用变化	全球：林地占原有林地的比例	75%(75%~54%) 该值为三种独立生物区系的加权平均值	62%
土地利用变化	生物区系：林地占潜在林地面积的比例	热带：85%(85%~60%) 温带：50%(50%~30%) 北方气候带：85%(85%~60%)	62%
淡水利用	全球：最大蓝水消耗量(km³·a^-1)	4000 km³·a^-1 (4000~6000 km³·a^-1)	约2600 km³·a^-1
淡水利用	流域：蓝水利用占月河川径流量的比例	低流量月份：25%(25%~55%) 中流量月份：30%(30%~60%) 高流量月份：55%(55%~85%)	约2600 km³·a^-1
大气气溶胶负载	全球：气溶胶光学厚度(AOD)	尚无确切界限	无
大气气溶胶负载	区域：季节性平均AOD	以南亚季风区为例： 0.25 AOD(0.25~0.50 AOD)	0.30 AOD
新物质的介入 (原化学污染)	尚无明确控制变量	尚无确切界限	无

社会基础	解释性指标	临界值	时段或年份
粮食安全	营养不良人口比例	13%	2006—2008
收入	人均每天生活费低于1.25美元的人口比例	21%	2005
水资源及卫生	无法获得安全饮用水的人口比例	13%	2008
水资源及卫生	无法获得健康的卫生设备的人口比例	39%	2008
医疗服务	无法获得基本药物的人口比例	30%	2004
教育	未接受小学教育的儿童比例	10%	2009
教育	15~24岁的文盲比例	11%	2009
能源	无电人口比例	19%	2009
能源	无卫生厨具人口比例	39%	2009
性别平等	男性和女性从事有薪酬工作的比例差距	34%	2009
性别平等	国家议会中,男女代表的比例差距	77%	2011
社会公平	在基尼系数大于0.35的国家,收入低于中位数的人口比例	33%	1995—2009
发言权	通过调查显示,认为自己没有言论自由的人口比例	待定	无
就业	未受雇于体面工作的劳动力人口比例	待定	无
恢复力	面临多维度贫困的人口比例	待定	无