Academic Articles and Reports

Overview

2020

• Brand-Correa, L et al. (2020). ‘Understanding (and tackling) need satisfier escalation’. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 16, no. 1: 309–325.
• Büchs, M et al. (2020). ‘Wellbeing Economics for the COVID-19 Recovery’. Wellbeing Economies Alliance (WEAll) Briefing Papers.
• Ensor, J and Hoddy, E (2020). ‘Securing the social foundation: A rights-based approach to planetary boundaries’. Earth System Governance (in press).
• Fanning, AL et al. (2020). ‘Provisioning Systems for a Good Life within Planetary Boundaries’. Global Environmental Change 64: 102135.
• Gough, I (2020). ‘Defining floors and ceilings: the contribution of human needs theory’. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 16, no. 1: 208–219.
• Hickel, J, and Kallis, G (2020). ‘Is Green Growth Possible?’ New Political Economy 25, no. 4: 469–86.
• Lieberknecht, L (2020). ‘Ecosystem-Based Integrated Ocean Management: A Framework for Sustainable Ocean Economy Development’. UNEP-GRID Arendal.
• Mair, S (2020). ‘Neoliberal economics, planetary health, and the COVID-19 pandemic: a Marxist ecofeminist analysis’. The Lancet Planetary Health 4, no. 12: e588–596.
• Millward-Hopkins, J et al. (2020). Providing decent living with minimum energy: A global scenario. Global Environmental Change 65: 102168.
• Roberts, JT et al. (2020). ‘Four Agendas for Research and Policy on Emissions Mitigation and Well-Being’. Global Sustainability 3: e3.
• Roy, A, and Pramanick, K (2020). ‘Safe and Just Operating Space for India’. In Handbook of Environmental Materials Management, 1–32. Springer International Publishing.
• Stratford, B and O'Neill, DW (2020). ‘The UK’s Path to a Doughnut-Shaped Recovery’. University of Leeds.
• Turner, R et al. (2020). ‘Towards a Sustainable Cornwall: State of the Doughnut’. University of Exeter.
• Wiedmann, T et al. (2020). ‘Scientists’ Warning on Affluence’. Nature Communications 11(1): 3107.
• Wugt Larsen, F and Lung, T (2020). ‘Is Europe Living within the Limits of Our Planet?’ European Environment Agency.

2019

• Bourges, B et al. (2019). ‘La société française face aux limites de la planète’. In L’environnement en France 2019, 155–193. Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire, Gouvernement de la République française.
• Capmourteres, V et al. (2019). ‘A Complex Systems Framework for the Sustainability Doughnut’. People and Nature 1, no. 4: 497–506.
• Downing, AS et al. (2019). ‘Matching Scope, Purpose and Uses of Planetary Boundaries Science’. Environmental Research Letters 14, no. 7: 073005.
• Hickel, J (2019). ‘Is It Possible to Achieve a Good Life for All within Planetary Boundaries?’ Third World Quarterly 40, no. 1: 18–35.
• Jackson, T and Victor, P (2019). ‘Unraveling the Claims for (and against) Green Growth’. Science 366, no. 6468: 950–51.

2018

• Beaudoin, Y (2018). ‘Hacking Economics for People and Planet’. Early Warning, Emerging Issues and Futures Foresight Brief 6. United Nations Environment Programme
• Boehnert, J (2018). ‘Anthropocene Economics and Design: Heterodox Economics for Design Transitions’. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 4, no. 4: 355–74.
• Häyhä, T et al. (2018). ‘Operationalizing the Concept of a Safe Operating Space at the EU Level – First Steps and Explorations’. SRC Technical Report. Stockholm Resilience Centre.
• O’Neill, DW et al. (2018). ‘A Good Life for All within Planetary Boundaries’. Nature Sustainability 1, no. 2: 88–95.
• Steffen, W et al. (2018). ‘Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, no. 33: 8252–59.
• Wiedmann, T and Lenzen, M (2018). ‘Environmental and Social Footprints of International Trade’. Nature Geoscience 11, no. 5: 314–21.

2017

• Cole, MJ et al. (2017). ‘Spatial Variability in Sustainable Development Trajectories in South Africa: Provincial Level Safe and Just Operating Spaces’. Sustainability Science 12, no. 5: 829–48.
• Lamb, WF and Steinberger JK, (2017). ‘Human Well-Being and Climate Change Mitigation’. WIREs Climate Change 8, no. 6: e485.
• Raworth, K (2017). ‘A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: Humanity’s Compass in the 21st Century’. The Lancet Planetary Health 1, no. 2: e48–49.
• Raworth, K (2017). ‘Why It’s Time for Doughnut Economics’. IPPR Progressive Review 24, no. 3: 216–22.

2016

• Häyhä, T et al. (2016). ‘From Planetary Boundaries to National Fair Shares of the Global Safe Operating Space — How Can the Scales Be Bridged?’ Global Environmental Change 40: 60–72.
• Hoornweg, D et al. (2016). ‘An Urban Approach to Planetary Boundaries’. Ambio 45, no. 5: 567–80.
• Verburg, P et al. (2016). ‘Methods and Approaches to Modelling the Anthropocene’. Global Environmental Change 39: 328–40.

2015

• Daly, H (2015). ‘Economics for a Full World’. Great Transition Initiative.
• Hajer, M et al. (2015). ‘Beyond Cockpit-Ism: Four Insights to Enhance the Transformative Potential of the Sustainable Development Goals’. Sustainability 7, no. 2: 1651–60.
• Sayers, M and Trebeck, K (2015). ‘The UK Doughnut: A Framework for Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice’. Oxfam Policy and Practice, Oxfam.
• Steffen, W et al. (2015). ‘Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet’. Science 347, no. 6223.
• Steffen, W et al. (2015). ‘The Trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration’. The Anthropocene Review 2, no. 1: 81–98.
• Turnheim, B et al. (2015). ‘Evaluating Sustainability Transitions Pathways: Bridging Analytical Approaches to Address Governance Challenges’. Global Environmental Change 35: 239–53.

2014

• Cole, M et al. (2014). ‘Tracking Sustainable Development with a National Barometer for South Africa Using a Downscaled “Safe and Just Space” Framework’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, no. 42: E4399–4408.
• Dearing, JA et al. (2014). ‘Safe and Just Operating Spaces for Regional Social-Ecological Systems’. Global Environmental Change 28: 227–38.
• Hoekstra, AY and Wiedmann, T (2014). ‘Humanity’s Unsustainable Environmental Footprint’. Science 344, no. 6188: 1114–17.

2013

• Griggs, D et al. (2013). ‘Sustainable Development Goals for People and Planet’. Nature 495, no. 7441: 305–7.
• Leach, M et al. (2013). ‘Between Social and Planetary Boundaries: Navigating Pathways in the Safe and Just Space for Humanity’. In World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments, 84–89. Paris: UNESCO.
• Nykvist, B et al. (2013). National Environmental Performance on Planetary Boundaries: A Study for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
• Steffen, W and Stafford Smith, M (2013). ‘Planetary Boundaries, Equity and Global Sustainability: Why Wealthy Countries Could Benefit from More Equity’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5, no. 3: 403–8.

2012 and earlier

• Costanza, R et al. (2012). ‘Building a Sustainable and Desirable Economy-in-Society-in-Nature’. New York: United Nations Division for Sustainable Development.
• Meadows, D (1999). ‘Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System’. The Sustainability Institute.
• Raworth, K (2012). ‘A Safe and Just Space for Humanity’. Oxfam Discussion Papers. Oxfam International.
• Rockström, J et al. (2009). ‘A Safe Operating Space for Humanity’. Nature 461, no. 7263: 472–75.
• Scheffer, M et al. (2012). ‘Anticipating Critical Transitions’. Science 338, no. 6105: 344–48.
• Vince, G (2012). ‘Living in the Doughnut’. Nature Climate Change 2, no. 4: 225–26.

Acknowledgements