Abstract
In 2009, a group of 29 scholars argued that we can identify a set of “planetary boundaries” that humanity must not cross at the cost of its own peril. This planetary boundaries framework has been influential in generating academic debate and in shaping research projects and policy recommendations worldwide. Yet, it has also come under heavy scrutiny and been criticized. What is today's overall significance and impact of the notion of planetary boundaries for earth system science and earth system governance? We review here the development of the concept and address several lines of criticism, from earth system science, development studies, and science and technology studies. We also examine some applications of the framework, discuss broader governance implications, and reflect on actual policy relevance. In concluding, we explore the most recent incarnation of the planetary boundaries framework in its avatar as earth system targets supported by an Earth Commission.
Highlights
Exhaustive, focusing on the leading publications that shaped the debate or papers that we see as illustrative of a discursive strand
At the end of this review, we explore in some detail the most recent incarnation of the planetary boundaries framework, in its avatar as earth system targets supported by an Earth Commission
How can we assess the overall impact of the planetary boundaries framework? In terms of pure citations and the breadth of debate, there is no doubt that this boundaries framework helped redefine the scientific discourse over the past decade
Summary
Exhaustive, focusing on the leading publications that shaped the debate or papers that we see as illustrative of a discursive strand. The proposed planetary boundaries included climate change, biodiversity loss, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorus cycle, stratospheric ozone depletion, ocean acidification, global freshwater use, land use change, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution. For each of these planetary boundaries, one or more control variables were identified (e.g., atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration), which in turn were assigned with numerical boundary values at a “safe” distance from dangerous levels, or where applicable, “tipping points” in earth system processes [1]. Input from civil society or governments, for example, was not systematically sought after, even though all planetary boundaries might suggest political action with profound consequences for national and global governance. The approach chosen in 2009 was to define from a purely scientific, expert-driven perspective a safe operating space for humanity, as the title of the article suggests [1]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
