Content uploaded by Vernon L Scarborough
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vernon L Scarborough on May 08, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Developing
an
Integrated
History
and
future
of
People
on
Earth
(IHOPE)
Robert
Costanza
1
,
Sander
van
der
Leeuw
2
,
Kathy
Hibbard
3
,
Steve
Aulenbach
4
,
Simon
Brewer
5
,
Michael
Burek
6
,
Sarah
Cornell
7
,
Carole
Crumley
7
,
John
Dearing
8
,
Carl
Folke
7
,
Lisa
Graumlich
9
,
Michelle
Hegmon
2
,
Scott
Heckbert
1
,
Stephen
T
Jackson
10
,
Ida
Kubiszewski
1
,
Vernon
Scarborough
11
,
Paul
Sinclair
12
,
Sverker
So
¨rlin
7,13
and
Will
Steffen
14
The
Integrated
History
and
future
of
People
on
Earth
(IHOPE)
initiative
is
a
global
network
of
researchers
and
research
projects
with
its
International
Program
Office
(IPO)
now
based
at
the
Stockholm
Resilience
Center
(SRC),
Uppsala
University,
Arizona
State
University,
Portland
State
University,
and
the
Australian
National
University.
Research
linked
to
IHOPE
demonstrates
that
Earth
system
changes
in
the
past
have
been
strongly
associated
with
changes
in
the
coupled
human–
environment
system.
IHOPE
supports
integrating
knowledge
and
resources
from
the
biophysical
and
the
social
sciences
and
the
humanities
to
address
analytical
and
interpretive
issues
associated
with
coupled
human–earth
system
dynamics.
This
integration
of
human
history
and
Earth
system
history
is
a
timely
and
important
task.
Until
recently,
however,
there
have
been
few
attempts
at
such
integration.
IHOPE
will
create
frameworks
that
can
be
used
to
help
achieve
this
integration.
The
overarching
goal
is
to
produce
a
rich
understanding
of
the
relationships
between
environmental
and
human
processes
over
the
past
millennia.
IHOPE
recognizes
that
one
major
challenge
for
reaching
this
goal
is
developing
‘workable’
terminology
that
can
be
accepted
by
scholars
of
all
disciplines.The
specific
objectives
for
IHOPE
are
to
identify
slow
and
rapidly
moving
features
of
complex
social–
ecological
systems,
on
local
to
continental
spatial
scales,
which
induce
resilience,
stress,
or
collapse
in
linked
systems
of
humans
in
nature.
These
objectives
will
be
reached
by
exploring
innovative
ways
of
conducting
interdisciplinary
and
transdisciplinary
science,
including
theory,
case
studies,
and
integrated
modeling.
Examples
of
projects
underway
to
implement
this
initiative
are
briefly
discussed.
Addresses
1
Institute
for
Sustainable
Solutions,
Portland
State
University,
Portland,
OR
97201,
United
States
2
School
of
Sustainability
&
School
of
Human
Evolution
and
Social
Change,
Arizona
State
University,
Tempe,
AZ
85287,
United
States
3
Pacific
Northwest
National
Laboratory,
Richland,
WA
99352,
United
States
4
NEON,
Inc.,
5340
Airport
Boulevard,
Boulder,
CO
80301,
United
States
5
Department
of
Geography,
University
of
Utah,
Salt
Lake
City,
UT,
United
States
6
Computational
and
Information
Systems
Laboratory,
NCAR,
Boulder,
CO
80307,
United
States
7
Stockholm
Resilience
Center,
Stockholm
University,
10691
Stockholm,
Sweden
8
School
of
Geography,
University
of
Southampton,
Southampton,
UK
9
College
of
the
Environment,
University
of
Washington,
Seattle,
WA
98195-5355,
United
States
10
Department
of
Botany,
University
of
Wyoming,
Laramie,
WY
82071,
United
States
11
Department
of
Anthropology,
University
of
Cincinnati,
Cincinnati,
OH
45221,
United
States
12
Department
of
Archeology
and
Ancient
History,
Uppsala
University,
Uppsala,
Sweden
13
Division
of
History
of
Science
and
Technology,
Royal
Institute
of
Technology,
Stockholm,
Sweden
14
ANU
Climate
Change
Institute,
Australian
National
University,
Canberra,
ACT
0200,
Australia
Corresponding
author:
Costanza,
Robert
(robert.costanza@pdx.edu)
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2012,
4:106–114
This
review
comes
from
the
Open
issue
Edited
by
Rik
Leemans
Received
2
December
2011;
Accepted
23
January
2012
Available
online
12th
February
2012
1877-3435/$
–
see
front
matter
#
2012
Elsevier
B.V.
All
rights
reserved.
DOI
10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.010
Brief
history
The
idea
for
IHOPE
emerged
from
a
joint
IGBP/IHDP
(International
Geosphere-Biosphere
Program/Inter-
national
Human
Dimensions
Program)
Planning
meet-
ing
in
Banff,
Canada,
in
2003.
The
following
summer,
a
first
planning
meeting
took
place,
aiming
to
kick
the
project
off
with
a
Dahlem
Conference,
which
took
place
in
June
2005
(convened
by
Costanza,
Steffen,
and
Graumlich).
In
January
2006,
a
meeting
took
place
in
Stockholm
to
outline
the
Research
Plan
for
the
project
(convened
by
Folke
and
Costanza),
and
in
November
of
that
year
an
informal
meeting
took
place
on
the
sidelines
of
the
Earth
System
Science
Partnership
(ESSP)
con-
ference
in
Beijing
to
discuss
the
first
steps
towards
implementation.
A
proposal
was
submitted
(by
Costanza,
Graumlich,
and
van
der
Leeuw)
to
the
National
Center
for
Ecological
Analysis
and
Synthesis
(NCEAS)
Available
online
at
www.sciencedirect.com
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2012,
4:106–114
www.sciencedirect.com
to
support
a
3-yr
working
group,
which
was
funded
in
2007.
That
same
year,
the
Dahlem
book
(‘Sustainability
or
Collapse?)
[1]
was
published
by
MIT
Press,
and
a
first
paper
about
the
project
was
published
in
Ambio
by
its
initiators
[2].
A
preliminary
meeting
of
the
‘US
South-
west/Northern
Mexico’
team
also
took
place
at
Arizona
State
University
(ASU)
in
2007.
2008
saw
a
series
of
scientific
meetings.
First
a
three-day
meeting
of
the
US
Southwest/Northern
Mexico
project
at
the
School
of
Advanced
Research
in
Santa
Fe,
NM,
followed
by
another
three-day
meeting
of
the
same
group
at
the
Santa
Fe
Institute
in
July
of
that
year
(both
convened
by
van
der
Leeuw)
took
place.
In
March,
the
project
was
presented
for
a
wider
academic
audience
in
two
dedicated
panel
sessions
at
the
Resilience
2008
conference
in
Stockholm
organized
by
Costanza,
So
¨rlin,
and
Crumley.
In
April,
a
first
meeting
of
the
Maya
project
was
held
at
the
Society
of
American
Anthropology
in
Vancouver
(convened
by
Scarborough
and
van
der
Leeuw).
In
September,
the
first
of
three
meetings
at
the
National
Center
for
Ecological
Analysis
and
Syn-
thesis
(NCEAS)
was
held
assembling
the
larger
IHOPE
group
(convened
by
Costanza,
Graumlich,
and
van
der
Leeuw).
These
meetings
were
followed
in
2009
by
a
three-day
meeting
of
the
Maya
group
(convened
by
Scarborough
and
van
der
Leeuw)
at
the
School
for
Advanced
Research,
and
the
second
NCEAS
meeting
in
September
(con-
vened
by
Costanza,
Graumlich,
and
van
der
Leeuw).
The
project
was
presented
at
the
Past
Global
Changes
(PAGES)
Young
Scholars
meeting
in
Corvallis
in
July
(by
van
der
Leeuw
and
Dearing).
2010
finally
saw
the
formal
establishment
of
the
project
with
a
number
of
events.
First
among
these
was
the
creation
of
the
International
Project
Office
at
the
Stock-
holm
Resilience
Center.
ASU
has
offered
to
fulfill
the
function
of
Regional
Office
for
the
Americas.
The
same
year,
the
project
was
accepted
as
a
jointly
(with
IGBP)
sponsored
project
by
IHDP,
and
various
members
of
the
project
team
published
a
number
of
papers
that
emerged
from
the
project
(see
bibliography
below).
A
series
of
meetings
were
held
both
in
Stockholm
and
in
the
US,
while
the
third
meeting
of
the
IHOPE
working
group
at
NCEAS
was
held
in
September.
In
August
2011
the
first
formal
meeting
of
the
IHOPE
Scientific
Steering
Committee
was
held
at
Uppsala
University
in
Sweden
(hosted
by
Sinclair).
At
this
meet-
ing
it
was
decided
to
have
a
distributed
International
Program
Office
(IPO)
with
major
nodes
at
Uppsala
University
(Sweden),
Stockholm
Resilience
Center
(Sweden),
Arizona
State
University
(US),
Portland
State
University
(US),
and
the
Australian
National
University
(Australia).
Long
term
goals
The
IHOPE
project
has
identified
three
long-term
goals
[3]:
1.
Map
the
Earth’s
integrated
record
of
biophysical
and
human
system
changes
over
past
millennia.
Higher
temporal
and
spatial
resolution
will
be
possible
in
more
recent
periods
of
analyses
(e.g.
100–2000
years
before
present
(YBP)).
The
range
for
longer-term
analyses
will
depend
on
the
region.
For
example,
Australian
history
might
include
the
past
60
000
years,
and
in
southern
Europe,
the
past
20
000
years
could
cover
colonization
since
the
Last
Glacial
Maximum
(LGM).
Test
human–environment
system
models
against
the
integrated
history
to
better
understand
the
socio-ecological
dynamics
of
human
history.
How
well
do
various
models
of
the
relationships
between
climate,
agriculture,
technology,
disease,
language,
culture,
war,
and
other
variables
explain
the
historical
patterns
of
human
settlement,
population,
energy
use,
and
Earth
system
cycles
described
by
global
biogeochemistry?
2.
Project,
with
more
confidence
and
skill,
options
for
the
future
of
humanity
and
Earth
systems.
These
projections
will
be
based
on
models
that
have
been
tested
against
the
integrated
history
and
with
contributions
from
the
full
range
of
participants.
Consistent
with
these
long-term
goals,
three
overarching
questions
have
been
identified
for
the
IHOPE
project:
1.
What
are
the
key
socio-ecological
interactions
from
an
integrated
history
that
provide
insight
into
future
options?
2.
What
are
the
complex
and
multiple
interacting
processes
and
scales
that
steer
the
emergence,
resilience,
sustainability
or
collapse
of
coupled
socio-ecological
systems?
A
part
of
this
question
is
to
understand,
derive,
and
quantify
the
relative
contributions
of
humans
as
causal
agents.
3.
What
is
needed
to
evaluate
alternative
explanatory
frameworks,
specific
explanations
and
models
(in-
cluding
complex
systems
models)
against
observations
of
highly
variable
quality
and
coverage?
Framework
and
methods
A
major
goal
of
IHOPE
is
to
learn
from
the
past
to
inform
future
possibilities
and
help
create
a
better
future.
Our
basic
framework
for
accomplishing
this
involves
integrating
theory,
comparative
studies,
and
socio-ecological
modeling
across
a
range
of
spatial
and
temporal
scales
(Table
1).
There
have
already
been
efforts
published
which
deal
with
mapping
human
induced
changes
over
long
time
periods.
These
include
mapped
time
series
of
population
and
land
use
changes,
sometimes
for
the
whole
Holocene
[4–8].
We
will
build
on
these
and
other
efforts
at
producing
integrated
historical
databases.
Integrated
History
and
future
of
People
on
Earth
Costanza
et
al.
107
www.sciencedirect.com
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2012,
4:106–114
Case
studies
in
the
Americas,
Europe,
Australia,
Africa,
etc.
(see
below),
along
with
interregional
and
global
scale
studies,
will
implement
this
framework.
The
case
studies
listed
are
not
exhaustive,
but
are
some
of
the
ones
currently
under
way.
We
ultimately
expect
case
studies
in
all
regions.
Clearly,
all
these
transverse
(horizontal)
activities
are
based
on
the
bringing
together
of
data
in
the
different
geographic
areas
(specified
vertically),
using
theory,
com-
parative
studies,
and
integrated
modeling.
The
application
of
these
practices
provides
the
traceabil-
ity
and
transparency
required
for
academic
review
of
IHOPE
results
by
the
international
community.
The
rigorous
application
of
these
practices
will
greatly
improve
interoperability
within
and
between
commu-
nities
of
practice
that
will
use
IHOPE
products
now
and
in
the
future.
Theory
The
challenges
of
modeling
future
socio-ecological
states
numerically
suggest
that
qualitative
understanding
of
system
behavior
should
be
further
developed.
The
objec-
tive
here
is
to
identify
and
develop
general
principles
of
socio-ecological
system
behavior,
supported
by
empirical
evidence
drawn
from
long
records
of
regional
environ-
mental
change.
A
few
are
deduced
from
historical
case
studies.
But
for
others,
we
can
take
principles
(often
aphorisms)
from
theoretical
ecology
and
complexity
science
and
test
their
validity
in
the
real
world
by
com-
parison
with
historical
records.
Past
records
not
only
provide
longer
timescales
than
are
conventionally
avail-
able
for
observations,
but
also
provide
a
larger
array
of
socio-ecological
systems
than
currently
exist.
As
a
basic
starting
point,
here
are
some
principles
drawn
from
the
literature
and
discussions
at
IHOPE
meetings
that
could
be
tested
(or
tested
further)
with
archeological/
palaeoecological/historical
records.
The
bullet
points
note
variants
on
each
theme,
further
explanations
and
implications.
Societal
dynamics
Complexity
in
social
systems
is
the
long-term
paradox
of
problem
solving
[9]
Short
term
and
self-interest
can
overwhelm
long
term
and
wider
interests
via
social
traps
and
dilemmas
[10,11].
Heterarchically
(as
opposed
to
hierarchically)
struc-
tured
societies
provide
more
resilience
[12].
Ecosystem
dynamics
Increased
complexity
begets
stability
System
resilience
is
controlled
by
slow-long
processes
Self-organized
systems
tend
towards
more
resilient
networks
Naturally
evolved
systems
can
reach
critical
states
where
they
respond
disproportionately
to
perturbations
from
outside
the
set
of
boundary
conditions
within
which
the
system
evolved
Variability
increases
before
threshold
change
Systems
slow
down
in
advance
of
abrupt
change
Coupled
socio-ecological
dynamics
Human
actions
tend
to
increase
system
sensitivity,
decrease
interconnectivity,
and
increase
predictability
Managed
systems
tend
to
shift
the
risk
spectrum
towards
more
frequent,
higher
magnitude
events
Convergent
trajectories
within
a
socio-ecological
system
tend
to
increase
vulnerability
Increased
spatial
homogeneity
leads
to
lower
resilience
Sustainability
equates
to
suboptimal
efficiency
Diversity
of
both
species
and
of
practice
in
socio-
ecological
systems
increases
resilience
Comparative
studies
These
studies
look
at
the
dynamics
of
societies
at
different
scales
and
under
different
environmental
cir-
cumstances.
They
are
presented
here
in
a
continuum
from
the
least
aggregated
and
most
mobile
to
the
most
aggregated
and
sedentary.
The
purpose
of
these
studies
is
to
improve
our
understanding
of
the
dynamics
involved
in
the
emergence
and
functioning
of
the
sys-
tems,
and
to
identify
a
level
of
abstraction
at
which
these
dynamics
can
be
described
and
understood
in
similar
terms
for
each
one,
so
that
a
truly
comparative
study
becomes
possible.
108
Open
issue
Table
1
Possible
ways
to
learn
from
the
past.
Approaches
Geographic
Areas
Americas
Europe
Australia
Asia
Africa
Inter-regional
Global
Theory
Comparative
Studies
Integrated
Modeling
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2012,
4:106–114
www.sciencedirect.com
Australia
Key
participants:
A.
Williams,
M.
Smith,
L.
Robin,
W.
Steffen,
C.
Turney
(All
ANU)
The
first
part
of
the
project
is
centered
on
a
synthesis
of
a
very
large
amount
of
archeological
and
climatic
data
for
the
Australian
continent,
and
aims
to
tease
out
aspects
of
the
human–environment
relationship
in
Australia’s
pre-
European
past.
A
good
example
of
this
work
is
a
recent
paper:
Hunter-Gatherer
Response
to
Late
Holocene
Cli-
matic
Variability
in
Northern
and
Central
Australia
[13].
The
paper
finds
that
over
the
past
2000
years
changes
in
the
archeological
signature
correlate
reasonably
well
with
transitions
in
the
ENSO
mean
state
between
generally
wetter
and
drier
conditions.
The
second
part
of
the
project
(Life
in
a
Land
of
Uncer-
tain
Extremes)
is
focused
on
the
variability
of
the
Aus-
tralian
environment
at
a
range
of
time
scales.
The
central
research
questions
were:
first,
How
does
a
calendar
driven
by
‘pulses’
depend
on
temperature,
water,
fire,
vegetation
and
other
life-sustaining
resources,
and
not
simply
annual
cycles
around
the
sun,
shape
biological,
social,
and
economic
activity?
second,
How
has
Australia
come
to
terms
with
the
limits
imposed
by
‘pulses’
and
extreme
events
in
the
past?
The
primary
product
of
the
project
was
a
monograph
[14].
In
the
third
part
of
the
project,
the
environmental
dynamics
will
be
confronted
with
the
societal
dynamics
and
models
constructed
that
will
help
us
develop
a
more
dynamic
understanding
of
long-term
socio-
environmental
change
in
this
environment.
This
new
initiative
is
designed
to
be
a
contribution
to
the
‘future’
timeframe
of
IHOPE.
The
aim
of
the
project
is
to
develop
models
that
can
simulate
the
coupled
bio-
physical–social-economic
cycles
of
the
human–earth
system.
The
initial
workshop
will
address
three
simple
but
profound
questions:
What
are
the
limits
of
quantitative
description
that
models
of
the
human–earth
system
can
aspire
to?
Can
we
identify
the
essential
process
ingredients
that
models
of
the
human–earth
system
must
include?
What
is
the
optimum
or
the
minimum
spatial,
temporal
or
sectoral
resolution
necessary
to
capture
these
processes
in
global
and
national
scale
models?
US
Southwest/Northern
Mexico
Key
participants:
D.
Abbott,
J.
M.
Anderies,
M.
Hegmon,
K.
Kintigh,
A.
Kinzig,
B.
Nelson,
M.
Nelson,
K.
Spielmann
(all
at
ASU)
Over
the
past
3000
years,
the
region
has
seen
a
succession
of
very
different
adaptations
to
extreme
climatic
circum-
stances.
This
group
has
been
working
together
for
decades
to
study
different
cultural
responses
to
environ-
mental
change,
based
on
a
comparative
study
of
six
subregions
in
the
area,
which
underwent
very
similar
changes
in
climate,
but
had
different
social
and
environ-
mental
resources
to
cope
with
these.
The
project
benefits
from
long
tree-ring
sequences
that
allow
detailed
recon-
structions
of
fluctuations
in
annual
average
precipitation
and
temperature
and
the
assignment
of
precise
dates
to
the
archeological
evidence.
In
addition,
the
project
has
developed
dynamic
(multi-agent)
models
of
social–
environmental
interaction
over
thousands
of
years
and
a
sophisticated
historical
GIS
database.
By
comparing
how
the
region’s
extreme
environmental
circumstances
have
been
managed
by
different
societies
over
the
last
10
000
years,
the
group
can
focus
on
distinguishing
cultural
and
economic
factors
from
environmental
con-
ditions.
Funding
for
this
Core
Project
has
come
from
the
US
National
Science
Foundation
and
Arizona
State
University.
Yucatan
Key
participants:
Vernon
Scarborough
(University
of
Cincin-
nati),
Arlen
and
Diane
Chase
(Florida
Central
University),
Keith
Prufer
(University
of
New
Mexico),
Jeremy
Sabloff
(Santa
Fe
Institute),
Joseph
Tainter
(Utah
State
University),
Fred
Valdezs
(University
of
Texas),
Rodrigo
Liendo
(Univer-
sidad
Nacional
Autonoma
de
Mexico),
David
Lentz
(Univer-
sity
of
Cincinnati),
Scott
Fedick
(University
of
California),
Joel
Gunn
(University
of
North
Carolina),
Nicholas
Dunning
(Uni-
versity
of
Cincinnati),
Gyles
Iannone
(Trent
University),
Scott
Heckbert
(Portland
State
University)
Home
to
the
Maya
civilization,
the
Yucatan
Peninsula
is
being
studied
from
1000
BCE
to
1000
CE.
The
chron-
ology
is
well
established
through
the
presence
of
stelae
with
calendar
dates.
The
region
is
important
to
the
Earth
system
because
such
tropical
wet-dry
forests
hold
half
of
the
planet’s
biodiversity.
The
region’s
historical
ecology
can
help
us
understand
how
to
maintain
these
ecosystems
and
the
humans
who
live
there.
The
Mayanists,
each
of
whom
is
involved
in
an
independent,
large-scale
project,
demonstrate
what
can
be
accomplished
at
the
regional
scale
when
investigators
agree
to
collaborate.
In
particu-
lar,
eight
‘hotspots’
have
been
selected
in
which
the
environmental
and
archeological
data
together
permit
to
outline
the
long-tem
socio-environmental
dynamics
over
the
roughly
1500
years
of
Maya
occupation
of
these
areas.
Comparing
the
local
environmental
differences
(relief,
regional
climate,
resources,
water,
etc.)
and
the
differences
in
social
organization
enable
us
to
identify
how
these
different
factors
have
contributed
to
the
indi-
vidual
trajectories
of
these
hotspots
under
similar
con-
ditions
of
global
environmental
change.
This
Maya
example
also
permits
exploration
of
teleconnections
with
other
regions,
biomes,
and
continents.
Because
the
Euro-
pean
group
(see
below)
is
studying
the
same
period
(1000
BCE
to
1000
CE),
comparisons
with
societies
surrounding
Integrated
History
and
future
of
People
on
Earth
Costanza
et
al.
109
www.sciencedirect.com
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2012,
4:106–114
the
Atlantic
Basin
(e.g.
Western
Europe,
North
and
Middle
America,
including
the
Yucatan
Peninsula)
are
expected
to
allow
exploration
of
deviation
amplifying
and
deviation
counteracting
conditions
at
regional,
oceanic,
continental,
and
global
scales.
An
intriguing
example
would
be
to
contrast
conditions
around
AD
900
that
contributed
to
the
decline
of
centralized
power
in
southern
Yucatan
with
those
implicated
in
the
rise
of
European
power
in
the
post-Migration
period.
A
joint
research
proposal
to
the
US
NSF
is
being
drafted.
Europe
Key
participants:
I.
Ralston
(University
of
Edinburgh),
V.
Guichard
(Bibracte),
C.
Crumley
(Stockholm
Resilience
Center),
J.
Dearing
(University
of
Southampton),
S.E.
van
der
Leeuw
(Arizona
State
University),
I.
Jouffroy
(Universite
´de
Franche
Comte
´
,
Besanc¸on),
P.
Sinclair,
F.
Herschend,
S.
Fischer,
H.
Lejdega
˚rd
(all
Uppsala
University),
K.
Holmgren
(Stockholm
University),
V.
Caracuta,
G.
Fiorentino
(both
University
of
Salento),
S.
Kane
(Oberlin
College)
This
subproject
is
new
and
less
well
developed,
but
it
draws
on
one
of
the
most
detailed
human
and
environ-
mental
histories
in
the
world.
With
special
attention
to
climate
fluctuations
with
a
periodicity
of
hundreds
of
years,
the
group
will
take
a
critical
perspective
on
the
intervals
of
rapid
environmental
change
and
social
reor-
ganization
before
(ca.
450
BC)
and
after
(ca.
500
AD)
a
stable
warm
event
coincident
with
the
expansion
of
Rome.
The
geographical
extent
of
the
study
is
E-W
from
the
Urals
to
the
Atlantic
fac¸ade
and
N-S
from
southern
Scandinavia
to
North
Africa.
Focusing
on
three
regions
(southern
Scandinavia,
central
to
southern
France
by
way
of
the
Rho
ˆne
corridor,
and
southern
Italy),
the
network
will,
as
in
the
Yucatan,
connect
many
independent
research
campaigns.
For
example,
the
Rho
ˆne
Corridor
region
will
collate
findings
from
major
projects
that
have
been
underway
for
decades
in
the
regions
of
Bourges,
Burgundy,
Annecy,
and
the
Midi.
The
Corridor
itself,
running
N-S
between
the
Alpine
and
Central
massifs,
crosses
the
major
ecotone
between
the
West
European
subtropical
and
temperate
climate
regimes
and
records
historic
temperature
and
precipitation
shifts.
For
millen-
nia,
the
Corridor
has
been
the
major
N-S
trade,
military,
and
migration
route
across
the
western
European
con-
tinent.
Carole
Crumley,
Steve
Jackson,
and
Simon
Brewer
are
exploring
potential
interactions
among
climate
change,
vegetation
cover,
and
cultural
activities
and
practices
during
the
Period
1000
BCE
—
1000
CE
in
Europe
and
western
Asia.
We
are
compiling
paleoclimate
records,
vegetation
records,
land-cover
simulations,
and
archeolo-
gical
and
documentary
data
to
produce
a
master
chronology
for
comparison,
particularly
of
climate
changes
and
cultural
benchmarks.
Our
working
hypothesis
is
that
the
peak
warm
period
coincided
with
flattening
of
the
latitudinal
temperature
and
moisture
gradients
in
Europe,
facilitating
widespread
and
intensive
wheat
cultivation.
We
postulate
that
these
gradients
steepened
during
the
migration
period,
resulting
in
increased
difficulties
in
cultivation
at
the
margins
of
the
Empire.
We
will
test
this
hypothesis
and
formulate
other
hypotheses
as
the
compilations
continue.
We
anticipate
one
paper
next
spring
that
presents
the
climate
chronology
and
cultural
chronology
and
compares
them
to
discuss
potential
relationships.
Modeling
Under
this
transverse
theme,
we
expect
to
be
developing
a
series
of
integrated
models
for
each
of
the
different
case
studies
that
function
as
dynamic
descriptions
of
the
life
cycle
of
these
societies.
These
models
will
draw
heavily
upon
the
theoretical
work
mentioned
above,
as
well
as
the
case
study
descriptions.
They
will
be
structurally
designed
in
ways
that
allow
the
dynamics
to
be
compared
across
the
cases
studied.
One
current
activity
of
the
project
is
building
an
inte-
grated
dynamic
systems/agent-based
model
of
the
Maya
civilization.
The
model
includes
the
dynamics
of
the
biophysical
system
—
climate,
water,
vegetation,
primary
production,
etc.
integrated
with
the
human
system
—
demography,
settlements,
agriculture,
trade,
technology,
institutions,
etc.
to
replicate
the
dynamics
of
the
civiliza-
tion
over
three
major
drought
cycles
and
its
ultimate
collapse.
Simulating
the
model
through
time
shows
the
spread
of
human
settlement
across
the
landscape.
A
number
of
functions
for
rainfall,
net
primary
productivity,
and
agricultural
suitability
are
calculated
by
the
cell-
based
landscape,
and
changes
based
on
assumptions
about
climate
cycles
that
influence
rainfall.
Demo-
graphics
interacts
with
spatial
data
to
grow
agricultural
crops
and
drive
migration
and
further
settlement.
Settle-
ments
are
linked
via
a
trade
network,
and
the
provision
of
ecosystem
services,
agriculture,
and
trade
combine
to
provide
overall
human
well-being.
The
system
is
then
simulated
through
time
and
under
comparative
scenarios
to
examine
under
what
conditions
the
system
maintains
sustainability,
or
in
turn
collapses
or
re-organizes.
The
model
is
evaluated
based
on
its
ability
to
generate
out-
comes
consistent
with
the
body
of
archeological
evidence,
in
this
case
the
ability
to
generate
the
regional
settlement
pattern
of
lowland
Mayan
cities,
the
location
of
cross-
Yucatan
peninsular
trade
routes
via
El
Mirador,
Tikal,
and
Calakmul,
and
the
ascendency
of
coastal
cities
in
the
post-classic
period.
The
model
allows
the
investigation
of
a
range
of
scenarios
including:
altering
the
frequency
and
severity
of
droughts,
the
sophistication
of
trade
technol-
ogy
by
land,
canoe,
and
marine
routes,
and
the
impacts
of
random
shocks
such
as
volcanic
eruptions.
IHOPE
will
encourage
the
development,
testing,
and
utilization
of
other
integrated,
dynamic
models
to
help
us
better
understand
the
past
as
a
means
to
creating
a
110
Open
issue
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2012,
4:106–114
www.sciencedirect.com
sustainable
and
desirable
future.
By
building
such
multi-
scalar
models
of
the
dynamics
of
different
kinds
of
societies,
and
comparing
them
from
the
perspective
of
their
structuration
as
well
as
evolution
over
time
in
different
environments,
we
will
gain
a
much
improved
insight
in
scales
of
socio-environmental
dynamics
that
we
have
thus
far
not
been
able
to
grasp,
and
thus
to
improve
our
decision-making
about
our
future,
which
is
seeing
currently
such
dramatic
changes
in
the
breadths
of
the
temporal
and
spatial
scales
involved.
For
example,
The
Roman
Period
as
described
above
offers
a
number
of
advantages
for
modeling,
as
a
number
of
well-informed
datasets
exist,
including
information
on
regional
differences
across
the
area
of
the
Empire.
It
will
therefore
constitute
one
of
the
ongoing
case
studies
for
the
development
and
implementation
of
integrated
IHOPE
models.
The
model
will
be
used
to
further
test
the
hypotheses
developed
during
data
collection
and
to
examine
the
impact
of
population
migration
on
the
land-
scape.
We
are
also
developing
a
collaboration
with
the
ARVE
(Atmosphere
Regolith
Vegetation)
modeling
group
led
by
Jed
Kaplan
at
the
E
´cole
Polytechnique
Fe
´de
´rale
de
Lausanne.
This
group
has
developed
a
model
of
land
use
change
in
response
to
changing
popu-
lation
pressure,
and
has
used
this
to
quantify
the
sub-
sequent
effects
on
the
carbon
cycle.
As
this
currently
relies
on
imposed
population
growth,
we
intend
to
couple
this
with
the
demographic
part
of
the
IHOPE
mode,
to
allow
us
to
dynamically
estimate
human
impact
on
eco-
system
services.
The
modeling
will
extend
to
other
case
studies,
and
applications
during
the
next
phase
of
work.
Related
projects
Several
ongoing
related
projects
connect
with
and
support
the
IHOPE
initiative.
These
include:
IGBP-PAGES
(past
global
changes)
focus
4
‘past
human–climate–ecosystem-interactions’
IGBP-PAGES
(http://www.pages-igbp.org/science/
focus4.html)
is
a
co-sponsoring
project
of
IHOPE.
An
annual
IHOPE
report
is
presented
annually
to
the
PAGES
SSC.
The
Focus
4
programme
draws
together
paleoenvironmentalists
who
reconstruct
environmental
changes
under
several
themes:
Biodiversity,
Soil
and
Sediments,
Carbon,
Water
and
Regional
Integration.
The
last
of
these
engages
most
directly
with
IHOPE
through
attempts
to
integrate
archival
records
of
all
kinds
for
socio-ecological
systems
at
regional
scales.
The
first
meeting
took
place
on
23–25th
September
2010
in
South-
ampton,
UK
with
the
aim
of
producing
a
protocol
for
the
collation
and
analysis
of
archival
records
in
developing
evolutionary
perspectives
on
modern
socio-ecological
systems.
The
urban
mind
This
project
studies
urban
resilience
across
the
world
and
over
the
long
term,
from
the
development
of
urbanism
10
000
years
ago
until
modern
times
(http://www.arkeologi.
uu.se/Forskning/Projekt/Urban_Mind/Introduction/).
It
involves
researchers
in
the
humanities
and
the
social
and
biophysical
sciences
from
various
institutes
in
Sweden,
the
United
Kingdom,
Germany,
Turkey,
Zimbabwe,
and
South
Africa.
The
development
of
urbanism
is
a
global
phenomenon
that
takes
radically
different
forms
in
differ-
ent
times
and
places,
with
widely
varying
consequences.
Ongoing
studies
address
cognitive
aspects
of
urbanism
and
climate
change
in
Africa,
Eurasia,
and
the
Americas.
This
project
has
been
funded
in
a
targeted
grant
from
MISTRA.
The
archeology
of
African
urbanism
Africa
has
the
longest
record
of
human
occupation
of
any
continent.
The
urban
past
of
Africa
is
complex
and
multi-
faceted
and
has
a
deep
time
depth
of
at
least
6000
years.
It
is
characterized
by
variety
of
location,
form,
and
organ-
ization.
Recent
overviews
have
grappled
with
problems
of
definition
of
the
‘urban’
and
‘non-urban’
function
and
specialization
and
these
will
be
critically
reviewed.
Afri-
can
urbanism
is
analyzed
in
terms
of
multi-scalar
regional
and
landscape
perspectives
highlighting
the
interactions
between
climate
change
and
ecosystem
services,
local
and
inter-regional
production
and
exchange,
as
well
as
governance
and
ideology.
A
thematic
approach
of
these
issues
by
region
is
undertaken
for
North
West
Central
East
and
southern
Africa
and
Madagascar
based
on
the
concept
of
energy
regimes.
The
temporal
scope
is
broad;
consideration
is
also
given
to
certain
Mid
Holocene
hunter-forager
settlement
systems
that
are
normally
excluded
from
considerations
of
urban
complexity.
Further
crucial
challenges
of
integrating
modern
urban
development
into
the
analytical
frame
defined
by
the
archeological
record
will
also
be
considered.
Key
Faculty:
Paul
Sinclair
(Uppsala
University)
Innocent
Pikirayi
(Pre-
toria
University).
Seed
funding
for
new
planning
initiatives
has
been
provided
by
STIAS
(the
Wallenebrg
Institute
of
Advanced
Stuies)
Stellenbosch
South
Africa
and
the
Swedish
Bank
Tercentenary
Foundation.
Expertise
for
the
future
This
is
a
thematic
project
that
cuts
across
disciplines
in
examining
the
history
of
the
idea
of
environmental
pre-
diction
and
the
reception
of
both
optimistic
and
pessi-
mistic
predictions
by
societies.
The
period
studied
begins
in
the
sixteenth
century;
predictions
range
from
personal
observation
to
interpretation
of
longitudinal
data
trends
(prices,
demographic
data,
meteorological
records)
as
statistical
modeling
becomes
increasingly
important.
This
cross-cutting
comparative
methodology
can
be
applied
to
all
case
studies;
it
provides
a
way
to
examine
IHOPE
itself
and
its
role
in
today’s
politics
of
science.
This
project
has
funding
from
the
Leverhulme
Trust,
the
Center
for
History
and
Economics,
Harvard
Integrated
History
and
future
of
People
on
Earth
Costanza
et
al.
111
www.sciencedirect.com
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2012,
4:106–114
University,
the
Australian
Museum
of
Natural
History,
and
the
SRC.
The
CLIO-INFRA
project
This
project
(http://www.clio-infra.eu)
aims
to
create
reliable
global
datasets
of
the
most
relevant
indicators
of
economic
performance
and
its
causes
for
the
past
500
years.
It
addresses
the
topic
of
global
inequality,
the
increasing
divergence
between
rich
and
poor
countries,
which
is
one
of
most
pressing
concerns
of
our
time
and
the
near
future.
The
big
history
project
This
project
(http://www.bighistoryproject.com/),
initiated
by
David
Christian,
weaves
evidence
and
insights
from
many
scientific
and
historical
disciplines
across
13.7
billion
years
into
a
single,
accessible
origin
story.
One
that
explores
who
we
are,
how
we
got
here,
how
we
are
connected
to
everything
around
us,
and
where
we
may
be
heading.
The
concept
arose
from
a
desire
to
go
beyond
the
specialized
and
self-contained
fields
that
emerged
in
the
20th
century
and
grasp
history
as
a
whole,
looking
for
common
themes
across
the
entire
time
scale
of
history.
The
Big
History
Project
LLC
(BHP)
is
an
organization
focused
on
bringing
this
unique
learning
experience
to
life
for
high
school
students.
Conclusions
Many
contemporary
societal
challenges
manifest
them-
selves
in
the
domain
of
human–environment
inter-
actions.
There
is
a
growing
recognition
that
responses
to
these
challenges
formulated
within
current
disciplin-
ary
boundaries,
in
isolation
from
their
wider
contexts,
cannot
adequately
address
them.
We
need
an
integrated,
trans-disciplinary
synthesis
that
allows
for
a
holistic
approach,
and,
above
all,
a
much
longer
time
perspective.
That
is
the
rational
approach
of
the
IHOPE
initiative.
This
approach
promises
to
yield
new
understandings
of
the
relationship
between
the
past,
present
and
possible
future
of
our
integrated
human–environment
system.
IHOPE
embodies
a
unique
new
focus
of
our
historical
efforts
on
the
future,
rather
than
the
past,
that
concen-
trated
on
learning
about
future
possibilities
from
the
development
of
a
science
of
the
past.
A
growing
world-
wide
community
of
trans-disciplinary
scholars
is
forming
around
building
this
Integrated
History
and
future
of
People
on
Earth.
The
initiative
has
already
stimulated
significant
new
research
and
a
large
number
of
publi-
cations
have
already
resulted,
directly
or
indirectly,
con-
nected
with
the
major
themes
of
IHOPE
[15–70].
The
activity
has
also
become
a
major
focus
within
the
global
change
community.
Building
integrated
models
of
past
human
societies
and
their
interactions
with
their
environments
yields
new
insights
into
those
interactions
and
can
help
to
create
a
more
sustainable
and
desirable
future.
Acknowledgements
The
IHOPE
initiative
has
received
support
from
several
sources,
including:
the
National
Center
for
Ecological
Analysis
and
Synthesis
(NCEAS),
the
Stockholm
Resilience
Center,
the
QUEST
project
at
the
University
of
Bristol,
the
University
of
Uppsala,
Arizona
State
University,
the
Institute
for
Sustainable
Solutions
at
Portland
State
University,
the
Australian
National
University,
the
Dahlem
Foundation,
the
National
Center
for
Atmospheric
Research
(NCAR),
and
the
Pacific
Northwest
National
Laboratory
(PNRL).
We
also
thank
two
anonymous
reviewers
for
their
helpful
comments
on
earlier
drafts.
References
1.
Costanza
R,
Graumlich
LJ,
Steffen
W
(Eds):
Sustainability
or
Collapse?
An
Integrated
History
and
Future
of
People
on
Earth.
Cambridge,
MA:
MIT
Press;
2007.
(Dahlem
Workshop
Reports
#
96).
2.
Costanza
RL,
Graumlich
W,
Steffen
C,
Crumley
J,
Dearing
K,
Hibbard
R,
Leemans
C,
Redman
D,
Schimel:
Sustainability
or
collapse:
what
can
we
learn
from
integrating
the
history
of
humans
and
the
rest
of
nature?
Ambio
2007,
36:522-527.
3.
Hibbard
KA,
Costanza
R,
Crumley
C,
van
der
Leeuw
S,
Aulenbach
S,
Dearing
J,
Morais
J,
Steffen
W,
Yasuda
Y:
Developing
an
Integrated
History
and
Future
of
People
on
Earth
(IHOPE):
Research
Plan.
IGBP
Report
No.
59.
IGBP
Secretariat,
Stockholm,
Sweden;
2010:40.
http://www.aimes.ucar.edu/ihope/
documents/.
4.
Ramankutty
N,
Foley
JA:
Estimating
historical
changes
in
global
land
cover:
croplands
from
1700
to
1992.
Global
Biogeochem
Cycles
1999,
13:997-1027.
5.
Pongratz
J,
Reick
C,
Raddatz
T,
Claussen
M:
A
reconstruction
of
global
agricultural
areas
and
land
cover
for
the
last
millennium.
Global
Biogeochem
Cycles
2008,
22:
doi:
10.1029/
2007GB003153.
6.
Kaplan
JO,
Krumhardt
KM,
Ellis
EC,
Ruddiman
WF,
Lemmen
C,
Klein
Goldewijk
K:
Holocene
carbon
emissions
as
a
result
of
anthropogenic
land
cover
change.
Holocene
2010,
20:
doi:
10.1177/0959683610386983.
7.
Hurtt
GC,
Chini
LP,
Frolking
S,
Betts
R,
Feddema
JJ,
Fischer
G,
Hibbard
KA,
Janetos
AC,
Jones
C,
Klein
Goldewijk
K
et
al.:
Harmonization
of
land-use
scenarios
for
the
period
1500–
2100:
600
years
of
global
gridded
annual
land-use
transitions,
wood
harvest,
and
resulting
secondary
lands.
Climatic
Change
2011,
109:117-161
doi:
10.1007/s10584-011-0153-2.
8.
Klein
Goldewijk
K,
Beusen
A,
van
Drecht
G,
de
Vos
M:
The
HYDE
3.1
spatially
explicit
database
of
human
induced
land
use
change
over
the
past
12,000
years.
Global
Ecol
Biogeogr
2011,
20:
doi:
10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00587.x.
9.
Tainter
J:
The
Collapse
of
Ancient
Societies.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press;
1988.
10.
Costanza
R:
Social
traps
and
environmental
policy.
Bioscience
1987,
37:407-412.
11.
Ostrom
E:
Governing
the
Commons:
The
Evolution
of
Institutions
for
Collective
Action.
Cambridge
University
Press;
1990.
12.
Crumley
C:
In
The
Archaeology
of
Global
Environmental
Change.
Humans
and
the
Environment:
New
Archaeological
Perspectives
for
the
21st
Century.
Edited
by
Davies
M,
Nkirote
F.
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press;
2010.
13.
Williams
A,
Ulm
S,
Goodwin
ID,
Smith
M:
Hunter-gatherer
response
to
late
holocene
climatic
variability
in
northern
and
central
Australia.
J
Quaternary
Sci
2010,
25:831-838.
14.
The
pulse.
Life
in
a
Land
of
Uncertain
Extremes.
Edited
by
Robin
L
et
al.:
National
Museum
of
Australia
Press;
2009.
15.
Anderies
JM,
Hegmon
M:
Robustness,
and
resilience
across
scales:
migration
and
resource
degradation
in
the
prehistoric
southwest
US.
Ecol
Soc
2011,
16:22.
16.
Barthel,
S.
et
al.:
Urban
Gardens-pockets
of
social-ecological
memory.
In
Greening
in
the
Red
Zone:
Disaster,
Resilience,
and
112
Open
issue
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2012,
4:106–114
www.sciencedirect.com
Community
Greening.
Edited
by
K.G.
Tidball,
M.E.
Krasny:
Springer-Verlag;
in
press.
17.
Barthel
S
et
al.:
Social–ecological
memory
in
urban
gardens.
Retaining
the
capacity
for
management
of
ecosystem
services.
Global
Environ
Change
2010,
20:255-256.
18.
Barthel
S,
So
¨rlin
S,
Ljungkvist
J:
Urban
Anthropocene.
Innovative
memory
for
resilient
cities
with
echoes
from
ancient
constantinople.
In
The
Urban
Mind,
Cultural
and
Environmental
Dynamics.
(Studies
in
Global
Archaeology,
15).
Edited
by
Sinclair
P,
Herschend
F,
Isendahl
C,
Nordquist
G.
Uppsala:
Uppsala
University
Press;
2011.
19.
Beddoe
R,
Costanza
R,
Farley
J,
Garza
E,
Kent
J,
Kubiszewski
I,
Martinez
L,
McCowen
T,
Murphy
K,
Myers
N
et
al.:
Overcoming
systemic
roadblocks
to
sustainability:
the
evolutionary
redesign
of
worldviews,
institutions
and
technologies.
Proc
Natl
Acad
Sci
U
S
A
2009,
106:2483-2489.
20.
Berger
JF,
Nuninger
L,
van
der
Leeuw
SE:
Modeling
the
role
of
resilience
in
socio–environmental
co-evolution:
The
Middle
Rho
ˆne
Valley
between
1000
b.c.
and
a.d.
1000.
In
The
Model-
based
Archaeology
of
Socio-natural
Systems.
Edited
by
Kohler
T,
van
der
Leeuw
SE.
Santa
Fe,
NM:
School
of
Advanced
Research;
2007:41-60.
21.
Boyle
JF,
Gaillard
M-J,
Kaplan
JO,
Dearing
JA:
Modelling
prehistoric
land
use
and
carbon
budgets:
a
critical
review.
Holocene
2011,
21:715-722
doi:
10.1177/0959683610386984.
22.
Cornell
S,
Costanza
R,
So
¨rlin
S,
van
der
Leeuw
S:
Developing
a
systematic
‘science
of
the
past’
to
create
our
future.
Global
Environ
Change
2010,
20:426-427.
23.
Crook
DC,
Elvin
M,
Jones
RJ,
Shen
J,
Dearing
JA:
The
history
of
irrigation
and
water
control
in
China’s
Erhai
catchment:
mitigation
and
adaptation
to
environmental
change.
In
Mountains:
Sources
of
Water,
Sources
of
Knowledge.
Series:
Advances
in
Global
Change
Research,
vol.
31.
Edited
by
Wiegandt
E.
Kluwer
Publications,
21–42;
2008:382
10.1007/978-1-4020-
6748-8_3.
24.
Crumley
C:
The
archaeology
of
global
environmental
change.
In
Humans
and
the
Environment:
new
Archaeological
Perspectives
for
the
21st
Century.
Edited
by
Davies
M,
Nkirote
F.
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press;
2010.
25.
Dai
X,
Yu
L,
Dearing
JA,
Zhang
W,
Shi
Y,
Zhang
F,
Gu
C,
Boyle
JF,
Coulthard
TJ,
Foster
GC:
The
recent
history
of
hydro-
geomorphic
processes
in
the
upper
Hangbu
river
system,
Anhui
Province,
China.
Geomorphology
2009,
106:363-375
doi:
10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.11.016.
26.
Dearing
JA:
Landscape
change
and
resilience
theory:
a
palaeoenvironmental
assessment
from
Yunnan,
SW
China.
Holocene
2008,
18:117-127.
27.
Dearing
JA:
Approaches
to
understanding
long
term
human–
environment
interactions
—
past,
present
and
future.
Handbook
of
Environmental
Change.
Edited
by
J.A.
Matthews:
Sage;
in
press.
28.
Dearing
JA,
Braimoh
AK,
Reenberg
A,
Turner
BL,
van
der
Leeuw
SE
II:
Complex
land
systems:
the
need
for
long
time
perspectives
in
order
to
assess
their
future.
Ecol
Soc
2010,
15:21.
29.
Dearing
JA,
Jones
RT,
Shen
J,
Yang
X,
Boyle
JF,
Foster
GC,
Crook
DS,
Elvin
MJD:
Using
multiple
archives
to
understand
past
and
present
climate–human–environment
interactions:
the
lake
Erhai
catchment,
Yunnan
Province,
China
(invited
Deevey
and
Frey
Review
Article).
J
Paleolimnol
2008,
40:3-31
doi:
10.1007/s10933-007-9182-2.
30.
Dearing
JA,
Graumlich
LJ,
Grove
RH,
Gru
¨bler
A,
Haberl
H,
Hole
F,
Pfister
C,
van
der
Leeuw
SE:
Group
report:
integrating
socioenvironmental
interactions
over
centennial
timescales
—
needs
and
issues.
In
Sustainability
or
Collapse?.
Edited
by
Costanza
R,
Graumlich
LJ,
Steffen
W.
Cambridge,
MA:
MIT
Press;
2008:243-274.
(Dahlem
Workshop
Reports).
31.
Foster
GC,
Chiverrell
RC,
Harvey
AM,
Dearing
JA,
Dunsford
H:
Lake
catchment
hydro–geomorphological
responses
to
environmental
change
in
the
Southern
Uplands
of
Scotland.
Holocene
2008,
18:935
doi:
10.1177/0959683608091799.
32.
Gaillard
M-J,
Sugita
S,
Bunting
J,
Dearing
JA,
Bittmann
F
(Eds):
Veg
Hist
Archaeobot,
17
Human
impact
on
terrestrial
ecosystems,
pollen
calibration
and
quantitative
reconstruction
of
past
land
cover.
2008,
17:415–615
doi:10.1007/s00334-008-0170-x.
33.
Hegmon
M,
Peeples
M,
Kinzig
A,
Kulow
S,
Meagan
C,
Nelson
M:
The
rigidity
trap
and
social
transformations:
long
term
perspectives
from
the
archaeology
of
the
U.S.
Southwest.
Ecol
Soc;
in
press.
34.
Jackson
ST:
Conservation
and
resource
management
in
a
changing
world:
extending
historical
range-of-variability
beyond
the
baseline.
In
Historical
Environmental
Variation
in
Conservation
and
Natural
Resource
Management.
Edited
by
Wiens
JA,
Hayward
GD,
Safford
HD,
Giffen
C.
Wiley-Blackwell;
2012.
35.
Janssen
MA:
Population
aggregation
in
ancient
arid
environments.
Ecol
Soc
2010,
15:19.
36.
Kohler
T,
van
der
Leeuw
SE:
Historical
socionatural
systems
and
models:
an
introduction
to
the
volume.
In
The
Model-
based
Archaeology
of
Socio-natural
Systems.
Edited
by
Kohler
T,
van
der
Leeuw
SE.
Santa
Fe:
School
of
Advanced
Research;
2007:1-12.
37.
Ljungkvist
J,
Barthel
S,
So
¨rlin
S,
Finnveden
S:
Lessons
for
a
sustainable
urban
anthropocene
from
the
metabolic
history
of
constantinople
In
The
Urban
Mind,
cultural
and
environmental
dynamics
(Studies
in
Global
Archaeology,
15).
Edited
by
P.
Sinclair,
F.
Herschend,
C.
Isendahl,
G.
Nordquist:
Uppsala:
Uppsala
University
Press;
in
press.
38.
Miller
F,
Osbahr
H,
Boyd
E,
Thomalla
F,
Bharwani
S,
Ziervogel
G,
Walker
B,
Birkmann
J,
van
der
Leeuw
SE,
Rockstro
¨m
J,
et
al.:
Resilience
and
Vulnerability:
Complementary
or
conflicting
concepts?
Ecol
Soc;
in
press.
39.
Nelson
M,
Kintigh
K,
Abbott
DR,
Anderies
JM:
Archaeology’s
long-term
perspective
on
irrigation
infrastructure
and
vulnerability.
Ecol
Soc;
in
press.
40.
Nelson
M,
Hegmon
M,
Kulow
S,
Peeples
M,
Kintigh
K,
Kinzig
A:
Resisting
diversity:
a
long-term
archaeological
study.
Ecol
Soc
2011,
16:25.
41.
Redman
CL,
Crumley
CL,
Hassan
F,
Hole
KF,
Riedel
F,
Tainter
JA,
Turchin
P,
Scarborough
VL,
Yasuda
Y:
Group
report:
millennial
perspectives
on
the
dynamic
interaction
of
climate,
people,
and
resources.
In
Sustainability
or
Collapse?
Integrated
History
and
Future
of
People
on
Earth
(IHOPE).
Edited
by
Costanza
R,
Graumlich
L,
Steffen
W.
Cambridge,
MA:
The
MIT
Press;
2007:
115-148.
Dahlem
Workshop
Report
96R.
42.
Robin
L,
Steffen
W:
History
for
the
anthropocene.
History
Compass
2007,
5:
doi:
10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00459.x.
43.
The
Future
of
Nature:
Documents
of
Global
Change.
Edited
by
L.
Robin,
S.
So
¨rlin,
P.
Warde:
Yale
University
Press;
in
press.
44.
Rockstro
¨m
J,
Steffen
W,
Noone
K,
Persson
A
˚,
Chapin
FS
III,
Lambin
EF,
Lenton
TM,
Scheffer
M,
Folke
C,
Schellnhuber
HJ,
Nykvist
B
et
al.:
Planetary
boundaries:
exploring
the
safe
operating
space
for
humanity.
Ecol
Soc
2009,
14:32
[online]
URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/.
45.
Rockstro
¨m
J,
Steffen
W,
Noone
K,
Persson
A
˚,
Chapin
FS
III,
Lambin
EF,
Lenton
TM,
Scheffer
M,
Folke
C,
Schellnhuber
HJ
et
al.:
A
safe
operating
space
for
humanity.
Nature
2009,
461:472-475.
46.
Scarborough
VL:
Beyond
sustainability:
managed
wetlands
and
water
harvesting
in
ancient
Mesoamerica.
In
The
Archaeology
of
Environmental
Change:
Socionatural
Legacies
of
Degradation
and
Resilience.
Edited
by
Fisher
CT,
Hill
JB,
Feinman
GM.
Tucson:
University
of
Arizona
Press;
2009:62-82.
47.
Water
and
Humanity:
A
Historical
Overview
(History
of
Water
and
Civilization
Book
Series,
Volume
VII).
Edited
by
V.L.
Scarborough:
Paris:
UNESCO;
in
press.
48.
Scarborough
VL:
How
to
interpret
an
ancient
landscape.
Proc
Natl
Acad
Sci
U
S
A
2003,
100:4366-4368.
49.
Scarborough
VL:
Colonizing
a
landscape:
water
and
wetlands
in
ancient
Mesoamerica.
In
The
Political
Economy
of
Ancient
Mesoamerica:
Transformations
during
the
Formative
and
Classic
Periods.
Edited
by
Scarborough
VL,
Clark
J.
Albuquerque:
University
of
New
Mexico
Press;
2007:163-174.
Integrated
History
and
future
of
People
on
Earth
Costanza
et
al.
113
www.sciencedirect.com
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2012,
4:106–114
50.
Scarborough
VL:
The
rise
and
fall
of
the
ancient
Maya:
a
case
study
in
political
ecology.
In
Sustainability
or
Collapse?
Integrated
History
and
Future
of
People
on
Earth
(IHOPE).
Edited
by
Costanza
R,
Gramlich
L,
Steffen
W.
Cambridge,
MA:
The
MIT
Press;
2007:51-60.
Dahlem
Workshop
Report
96R.
51.
Scarborough
VL:
Rate
and
process
of
societal
change
in
semitropical
settings:
the
ancient
Maya
and
the
living
Balinese.
Quaternary
Int
2008,
184:24-40.
52.
Scarborough
VL:
The
archaeology
of
sustainability:
Mesoamerica
(invited).
Ancient
Mesoam
2010,
20:197-203.
53.
Scarborough
VL,
Fred
Valdez:
An
alternative
order:
the
dualistic
economies
of
the
ancient
Maya.
Latin
Am
Antiquity
2009,
20:207-227.
54.
Scarborough
VL,
Burnside
W:
Global
change:
mapping
culture
onto
climate.
In
Climate
Crises
in
the
Human
Past,
vol.
6.
Edited
by
Mainwaring
AB,
Giegengack
R,
Vita-Finzi
C.
Philadelphia:
American
Philosophical
Society
and
Lighting
Rod
Press;
2010:
175-187.
55.
Scarborough
VL,
Burnside
W:
Complexity
and
sustainability:
perspectives
from
the
ancient
Maya
and
the
modern
Balinese.
Am
Antiquity
2010,
75:327-363.
56.
Shen
Z,
Bloemendal
J,
Mauz
B,
Chiverrell
RC,
Dearing
JA,
Liu
Q:
Environmental
magnetism
and
optical
luminescence
chronology
of
lateglacial
and
postglacial
sediments
from
Crummock
Water,
English
Lake
District.
Holocene
2008,
18:129-140.
57.
Sinclair
P,
Nordquist
G,
Herschend
F,
Isendahl
C
(Eds):
The
Urban
Mind:
Cultural
and
Environmental
Dynamics,
Studies
in
Global
Archaeology
15.
Uppsala
University;
2010.
58.
So
¨rlin
S,
et
al.:
Environmental
futures,
predictions
and
precautions
for
global
change
thinking.
New
Haven:
Yale
University
Press;
in
press.
59.
Spielmann
K,
Nelson
M,
Ingram
S,
Peeples
M:
Sustainable
small-
scale
agriculture
in
semi-arid
environments.
Ecol
Soc
2011,
16:26.
60.
Steffen
W:
Looking
back
to
the
future.
Ambio
2008,
37:507-513.
61.
Steffen
W,
Crutzen
PJ,
McNeill
JR:
The
Anthropocene:
are
humans
now
overwhelming
the
great
forces
of
Nature?
Ambio
2007,
36:614-621.
62.
van
der
Leeuw
S,
Costanza
R,
Aulenbach
S,
Brewer
S,
Burek
M,
Cornell
S,
Crumley
C,
Dearing
JA,
Downy
C,
Graumlich
LJ
et
al.:
Toward
an
integrated
history
to
guide
the
future.
Ecol
Soc
2011,
16:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04341-160402.
63.
van
der
Leeuw
SE:
Including
humans
in
earth
system
modelling.
Global
Change
Newslett
2007,
69:
(Guest
editorial)
May.
64.
van
der
Leeuw
SE:
Information
processing
and
its
role
in
the
rise
of
the
European
world
system.
In
Sustainability
or
Collapse?.
Edited
by
Costanza
R,
Graumlich
LJ,
Steffen
W.
Cambridge,
MA:
MIT
Press;
2007:213-241.
(Dahlem
Workshop
Reports).
65.
van
der
Leeuw
SE:
Climate
and
Society:
lessons
from
the
past
10,000
years.
Ambio
2008,
37:476-482.
66.
van
der
Leeuw
SE:
What
is
an
‘Environmental
Crisis’
to
an
archaeologist.
In
The
Archaeology
of
Environmental
Change
—
Socio-natural
Legacies
of
Degradation
and
Resilience.
Edited
by
Fisher
C,
Hill
B,
Feinman
G.
Tucson:
University
of
Arizona
Press;
2009:40-61.
67.
van
der
Leeuw
SE,
Lane
D,
Read
DW:
The
long-term
evolution
of
social
organization.
In
Complexity
Perspectives
on
Innovation
and
Social
Change.
Edited
by
Lane
D,
Pumain
D,
van
der
Leeuw
SE,
West
G.
Berlin:
Springer;
2009:85-115.
chapter
3
(Methodos
series).
68.
Welsh
KE,
Dearing
JA,
Chiverrell
RC,
Coulthard
TJ:
Testing
a
cellular
modelling
approach
to
simulating
late
Holocene
sediment
and
water
transfer
from
catchment
to
lake
in
the
French
Alps
since
1826.
Holocene
2009,
19:783-796.
69.
Yan
Z,
Gu
H,
Dai
Y,
Wu
X,
Dearing
JA,
Zhang
W,
Yu
L:
Population,
land
use
and
environmental
impacts
in
Shucheng
County,
Anhui
Province,
China
during
the
Ming
and
Qing
dynasties.
Environ
Hist
2009,
15:61-78
doi:
10.3197/096734009X404662.
70.
Zalasiewicz
J,
Williams
M,
Steffen
W,
Crutzen
P:
The
new
world
of
the
Anthropocene.
Environ
Sci
Technol
2010,
44:2228-2231
doi:
10.1021/es903118j.
114
Open
issue
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2012,
4:106–114
www.sciencedirect.com
