Content uploaded by Will Steffen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Will Steffen on Nov 24, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A
lthough Earth has undergone many
periods of significant environmen-
tal change, the planet’s environment
has been unusually stable for the past 10,000
years
1–3
. This period of stability — known to
geologists as the Holocene — has seen human
civilizations arise, develop and thrive. Such
stability may now be under threat. Since the
Industrial Revolution, a new era has arisen,
the Anthropocene
4
, in which human actions
have become the main driver of global envi-
ronmental change5. This could see human
activities push the Earth system outside the
stable environmental state of the Holocene,
with consequences that are detrimental or
even catastrophic for large parts of the world.
During the Holocene, environmental
change occurred naturally and Earth’s regu-
latory capacity maintained the conditions
that enabled human development. Regular
temperatures, freshwater availability and
biogeochemical flows all stayed within a rela-
tively narrow range. Now, largely because of
a rapidly growing reliance on fossil fuels and
industrialized forms of agriculture, human
activities have reached a level that could dam-
age the systems that keep Earth in the desirable
Holocene state. The result could be irrevers-
ible and, in some cases, abrupt environmental
change, leading to a state less conducive to
human development
6
. Without pressure from
humans, the Holocene is expected to continue
for at least several thousands of years7.
Planetary boundaries
To meet the challenge of maintaining the
Holocene state, we propose a framework
based on ‘planetary boundaries’. These
A safe operating space for humanity
Identifying and quantifying planetary boundaries that must not be transgressed could help prevent human
activities from causing unacceptable environmental change, argue
Johan RockstrÖm
and colleagues.
Figure 1 | Beyond the boundary. The inner green shading represents the proposed safe operating
space for nine planetary systems. The red wedges represent an estimate of the current position for
each variable. The boundaries in three systems (rate of biodiversity loss, climate change and human
interference with the nitrogen cycle), have already been exceeded.
A
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
i
c
B
i
o
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
l
o
s
s
C
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
G
l
o
b
a
l
P
h
o
s
p
h
o
r
u
s
N
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
(
b
i
o
g
e
o
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
S
t
r
a
t
o
s
p
h
e
r
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
a
c
i
d
i
fi
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
C
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
n
o
t
y
e
t
q
u
a
n
t
i
fi
e
d
)
a
e
r
o
s
o
l
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
(
n
o
t
y
e
t
q
u
a
n
t
i
fi
e
d
)
o
z
o
n
e
d
e
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
f
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
u
s
e
fl
o
w
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
)
c
y
c
l
e
c
y
c
l
e
SUMMARY
● New approach proposed for defining preconditions for human
development
● Crossing certain biophysical thresholds could have disastrous
consequences for humanity
● Three of nine interlinked planetary boundaries have already been
overstepped
boundaries define the safe operating space
for humanity with respect to the Earth system
and are associated with the planet’s bio-
physical subsystems or processes. Although
Earth’s complex systems sometimes respond
smoothly to changing pressures, it seems that
this will prove to be the exception rather than
the rule. Many subsystems of Earth react in
a nonlinear, often abrupt, way, and are par-
ticularly sensitive around threshold levels of
certain key variables. If these thresholds are
crossed, then important subsystems, such as a
monsoon system, could shift into a new state,
often with deleterious or potentially even
disastrous consequences for humans8,9.
Most of these thresholds can be defined by
a critical value for one or more control vari-
ables, such as carbon dioxide concentration.
Not all processes or subsystems on Earth have
well-defined thresholds, although human
actions that undermine the resilience of such
processes or subsystems — for example, land
and water degradation — can increase the risk
that thresholds will also be crossed in other
processes, such as the climate system.
We have tried to identify the Earth-system
processes and associated thresholds which, if
crossed, could generate unacceptable envi-
ronmental change. We have found nine such
processes for which we believe it is neces-
sary to define planetary boundaries: climate
change; rate of biodiversity loss (terrestrial
and marine); interference with the nitrogen
and phosphorus cycles; stratospheric ozone
depletion; ocean acidification; global fresh-
water use; change in land use; chemical pol-
lution; and atmospheric aerosol loading (see
Fig. 1 and Table).
In general, planetary boundaries are values
for control variables that are either at a ‘safe’
distance from thresholds — for processes
with evidence of threshold behaviour — or
at dangerous levels — for processes without
472
Vol 461|24 September 2009
FEATURE
472-475 Opinion Planetary Boundaries MH AU.indd 472472-475 Opinion Planetary Boundaries MH AU.indd 472 18/9/09 11:12:3918/9/09 11:12:39
© 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
evidence of thresholds. Determining a safe
distance involves normative judgements of
how societies choose to deal with risk and
uncertainty. We have taken a conservative,
risk-averse approach to quantifying our plan-
etary boundaries, taking into account the large
uncertainties that surround the true position
of many thresholds. (A detailed description
of the boundaries — and the analyses behind
them — is given in ref. 10.)
Humanity may soon be approaching the
boundaries for global freshwater use, change
in land use, ocean acidification and interfer-
ence with the global phosphorous cycle (see
Fig. 1). Our analysis suggests that three of the
Earth-system processes — climate change, rate
of biodiversity loss and interference with the
nitrogen cycle — have already transgressed
their boundaries. For the latter two of these,
the control variables are the rate of species loss
and the rate at which N
2
is removed from the
atmosphere and converted to reactive nitrogen
for human use, respectively. These are rates of
change that cannot continue without signifi-
cantly eroding the resilience of major compo-
nents of Earth-system functioning. Here we
describe these three processes.
Climate change
Anthropogenic climate change is now beyond
dispute, and in the run-up to the climate
negotiations in Copenhagen this December,
the international discussions on targets for
climate mitigation have intensified. There is
a growing convergence towards a ‘2 °C guard-
rail’ approach, that is, containing the rise in
global mean temperature to no more than 2 °C
above the pre-industrial level.
Our proposed climate boundary is based
on two critical thresholds that separate quali-
tatively different climate-system states. It has
two parameters: atmospheric concentration
of carbon dioxide and radiative forcing (the
rate of energy change per unit area of the
globe as measured at the top of the atmos-
phere). We propose that human changes to
atmospheric CO
2
concentrations should not
exceed 350 parts per million by volume, and
that radiative forcing should not exceed 1 watt
per square metre above pre-industrial levels.
Transgressing these boundaries will increase
the risk of irreversible climate change, such as
the loss of major ice sheets, accelerated sea-
level rise and abrupt shifts in forest and agri-
cultural systems. Current CO
2
concentration
stands at 387 p.p.m.v. and the change in radia-
tive forcing is 1.5 W m−2 (ref. 11).
There are at least three reasons for our pro-
posed climate boundary. First, current cli-
mate models may significantly underestimate
the severity of long-term climate change for
a given concentration of greenhouse gases12.
Most models11 suggest that a doubling in
atmospheric CO
2
concentration will lead to a
global temperature rise of about 3 °C (with a
probable uncertainty range of 2–4.5 °C) once
the climate has regained equilibrium. But these
models do not include long-term reinforcing
feedback processes that further warm the cli-
mate, such as decreases in the surface area of
ice cover or changes in the distribution of veg-
etation. If these slow feedbacks are included,
doubling CO2 levels gives an eventual tempera-
ture increase of 6 °C (with a probable uncer-
tainty range of 4–8 °C). This would threaten
the ecological life-support systems that have
developed in the late Quaternary environment,
and would severely challenge the viability of
contemporary human societies.
The second consideration is the stability of
the large polar ice sheets. Palaeo climate data
from the past 100 million years show that
CO
2
concentrations were a major factor in the
long-term cooling of the past 50 million years.
Moreover, the planet was largely ice-free until
CO2 concentrations fell below 450 p.p.m.v.
(±100 p.p.m.v.), suggesting that there is a crit-
ical threshold between 350 and 550 p.p.m.v.
(ref. 12). Our boundary of 350 p.p.m.v. aims
to ensure the continued existence of the large
polar ice sheets.
Third, we are beginning to see evidence that
some of Earth’s subsystems are already mov-
ing outside their stable Holocene state. This
includes the rapid retreat of the summer sea
ice in the Arctic ocean13, the retreat of moun-
tain glaciers around the world11, the loss of
mass from the Greenland and West Antarctic
ice sheets
14
and the accelerating rates of sea-
level rise during the past 10–15 years15.
Rate of biodiversity loss
Species extinction is a natural process, and
would occur without human actions. How-
ever, biodiversity loss in the Anthropocene has
accelerated massively. Species are becoming
extinct at a rate that has not been seen since
the last global mass-extinction event16.
The fossil record shows that the back-
ground extinction rate for marine life is 0.1–1
extinctions per million species per year; for
PLANETARY BOUNDARIES
Earth-system process Parameters Proposed
boundary Current
status Pre-industrial
value
Climate change (i) Atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration (parts per million
by volume)
350 387 280
(ii) Change in radiative forcing
(watts per metre squared) 1 1.5 0
Rate of biodiversity loss Extinction rate (number of species
per million species per year) 10 >100 0.1–1
Nitrogen cycle (part
of a boundary with the
phosphorus cycle)
Amount of N2 removed from
the atmosphere for human use
(millions of tonnes per year)
35 121 0
Phosphorus cycle (part
of a boundary with the
nitrogen cycle)
Quantity of P flowing into the
oceans (millions of tonnes per year) 11 8.5–9.5 ~1
Stratospheric ozone
depletion Concentration of ozone (Dobson
unit) 276 283 290
Ocean acidification Global mean saturation state of
aragonite in surface sea water 2.75 2.90 3.44
Global freshwater use Consumption of freshwater
by humans (km3 per year) 4,000 2,600 415
Change in land use Percentage of global land cover
converted to cropland 15 11.7 Low
Atmospheric aerosol
loading Overall particulate concentration in
the atmosphere, on a regional basis To be determined
Chemical pollution For example, amount emitted to,
or concentration of persistent
organic pollutants, plastics,
endocrine disrupters, heavy metals
and nuclear waste in, the global
environment, or the effects on
ecosystem and functioning of Earth
system thereof
To be determined
Boundaries for processes in red have been crossed. Data sources: ref. 10 and supplementary information
473
NATURE|Vol 461|24 September 2009 FEATURE
472-475 Opinion Planetary Boundaries MH AU.indd 473472-475 Opinion Planetary Boundaries MH AU.indd 473 18/9/09 11:12:4418/9/09 11:12:44
© 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
mammals it is 0.2–0.5 extinctions per million
species per year
16
. Today, the rate of extinction
of species is estimated to be 100 to 1,000 times
more than what could be considered natural.
As with climate change, human activities are
the main cause of the acceleration. Changes
in land use exert the most significant effect.
These changes include the conversion of natu-
ral ecosystems into agriculture or into urban
areas; changes in frequency, duration or mag-
nitude of wildfires and similar disturbances;
and the introduction of new species into land
and freshwater environments17. The speed of
climate change will become a more important
driver of change in biodiversity this century,
leading to an accelerating rate of species loss
18
.
Up to 30% of all mammal, bird and amphib-
ian species will be threatened with extinction
this century19.
Biodiversity loss occurs at the local to
regional level, but it can have pervasive effects
on how the Earth system functions, and it inter-
acts with several other planetary boundaries.
For example, loss of biodiversity can increase
the vulnerability of terrestrial and aquatic eco-
systems to changes in climate and oce an acidity,
thus reducing the safe boundary levels of these
processes. There is growing understanding of
the importance of functional biodiversity in
preventing ecosystems from tipping into unde-
sired states when they are disturbed20. This
means t hat apparent re dundancy i s required t o
maintain an ecosystem’s resilience. Ecosystems
that depend on a few or single species for criti-
cal functions are vulnerable to disturbances,
such as disease, and at a greater risk of tipping
into undesired states8,21.
From an Earth-system perspective, set-
ting a boundary for biodiversity is difficult.
Although it is now accepted that a rich mix
of species underpins the resilience of ecosys-
tems
20,21
, little is known quantitatively about
how much and what kinds of biodiversity
can be lost before this resilience is eroded22.
This is particularly true at the scale of Earth
as a whole, or for major subsystems such as
the Borneo rainforests or the Amazon Basin.
Ideally, a planetary boundary should capture
the role of biodiversity in regulating the resil-
ience of systems on Earth. Because science
cannot yet provide such information at an
aggregate level, we propose extinction rate
as an alternative (but weaker) indicator. As a
result, our suggested planetary boundary for
biodiversity of ten times the background rates
of extinction is only a very preliminary esti-
mate. More research is required to pin down
this boundary with greater certainty. However,
we can say with some confidence that Earth
cannot sustain the current rate of loss without
significant erosion of ecosystem resilience.
Nitrogen and phosphorus cycles
Modern agriculture is a major cause of envi-
ronmental pollution, including large-scale
nitrogen- and phosphorus-induced environ-
mental change23. At the planetary scale, the
additional amounts of nitrogen and phospho-
rus activated by humans are now so large that
they significantly perturb the global cycles of
these two important elements24,25.
Human processes — primarily the manu-
facture of fertilizer for food production and
the cultivation of leguminous crops — con-
vert around 120 million tonnes of N2 from
the atmosphere per year into reactive forms
— which is more than the combined effects
from all Earth’s terrestrial processes. Much of
this new reactive nitrogen ends up in the envi-
ronment, polluting water ways and the coastal
zone, accumulating in land systems and add-
ing a number of gases to the atmosphere.
It slowly erodes the resilience of important
Earth subsystems. Nitrous oxide, for exam-
ple, is one of the most important non-CO2
greenhouse gases and thus directly increases
radiative forcing.
Anthropogenic distortion of the nitro-
gen cycle and phosphorus flows has shifted
the state of lake systems from clear to turbid
water
26
. Marine ecosystems have been subject
to similar shifts, for example, during periods
of anoxia in the Baltic Sea caused by exces-
sive nutrients27. These and other nutrient-
generated impacts justify the formulation
of a planetary boundary for nitrogen and
phosphorus flows, which we propose should
be kept together as one boundary given their
close interactions with other Earth-system
processes.
Setting a planetary boundary for human
modification of the nitrogen cycle is not
straightforward. We have defined the bound-
ary by considering the human fixation of N
2
from the atmosphere as a giant ‘valve’ that con-
trols a massive flow of new reactive nitrogen
into Earth. As a first guess, we suggest that this
valve should contain the flow of new reactive
nitrogen to 25% of its current value, or about
35 million tonnes of nitrogen per year. Given
the implications of trying to reach this target,
much more research and synthesis of informa-
tion is required to determine a more informed
boundary.
Unlike nitrogen, phosphorus is a fossil min-
eral that accumulates as a result of geological
processes. It is mined from rock and its uses
range from fertilizers to toothpaste. Some 20
million tonnes of phosphorus is mined every
year and around 8.5 million–9.5 million
tonnes of it finds its way into the oceans25,28.
This is estimated to be approximately eight
times the natural background rate of influx.
Records of Earth history show that large-
scale ocean anoxic events occur when critical
thresholds of phosphorus inflow to the oceans
are crossed. This potentially explains past mass
extinctions of marine life. Modelling sug-
gests that a sustained increase of phosphorus
flowing into the oceans exceeding 20% of the
natural background weathering was enough to
induce past ocean anoxic events29.
Our tentative modelling estimates suggest
that if there is a greater than tenfold increase
in phosphorus flowing into the oceans (com-
pared with pre-industrial levels), then anoxic
ocean events become more likely within 1,000
years. Despite the large uncertainties involved,
the state of current science and the present
observations of abrupt phosphorus-induced
regional anoxic events indicate that no more
than 11 million tonnes of phosphorus per year
should be allowed to flow into the oceans —
ten times the natural background rate. We
estimate that this boundary level will allow
hum anit y to s afely ste er away fr om the r isk o f
ocean anoxic events for more than 1,000 years,
acknowledging that current levels already
exceed critical thresholds for many estuaries
and freshwater systems.
Delicate balance
Although the planetary boundaries are
described in terms of individual quantities
and separate processes, the boundaries are
tightly coupled. We do not have the luxury of
concentrating our efforts on any one of them
in isolation from the others. If one boundary
is transgressed, then other boundaries are also
under serious risk. For instance, significant
land-use changes in the Amazon could influ-
ence water resources as far away as Tibet30.
The climate-change boundary depends on
staying on the safe side of the freshwater, land,
aerosol, nitrogen–phosphorus, ocean and
stratospheric boundaries. Transgressing the
nitrogen–phosphorus boundary can erode the
resilience of some marine ecosystems, poten-
tially reducing their capacity to absorb CO2
and thus affecting the climate boundary.
The boundaries we propose represent a new
approach to defining biophysical precondi-
tions for human development. For the first
time, we are trying to quantify the safe lim-
its outside of which the Earth system cannot
continue to function in a stable, Holocene-like
state.
The approach rests on three branches of sci-
entific enquiry. The first addresses the scale
of human action in relation to the capacity
of Earth to sustain it. This is a significant
feature of the ecological economics research
agenda
31
, drawing on knowledge of the essen-
tial role of the life-support properties of the
474
NATURE|Vol 461|24 September 2009
FEATURE
472-475 Opinion Planetary Boundaries MH AU.indd 474472-475 Opinion Planetary Boundaries MH AU.indd 474 18/9/09 11:12:4418/9/09 11:12:44
© 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
environment for human wellbeing32,33 and
the biophysical constraints for the growth of
the economy34,35. The second is the work on
understanding essential Earth processes
6,36,37
including human actions
23,38
, brought together
in the fie lds of g lob al c han ge r ese arch a nd s us-
tainability science
39
. The third field of enquiry
is research into resilience
40–42
and its links to
complex dynamics
43,44
and self-regulation of
living systems
45,46
, emphasizing thresholds and
shifts between states8.
Although we present evidence that three
boundaries have been overstepped, there
remain many gaps in our knowledge. We have
tentatively quantified seven boundaries, but
some of the figures are merely our first best
guesses. Furthermore, because many of the
boundaries are linked, exceeding one will have
implications for others in ways that we do not
as yet completely understand. There is also sig-
nificant uncertainty over how long it takes to
cause dangerous environmental change or to
trigger other feedbacks that drastically reduce
the ability of the Earth system, or important
subsystems, to return to safe levels.
The evidence so far suggests that, as long as
the thresholds are not crossed, humanity has
the freedom to pursue long-term social and
economic development. ■
1. Dansgaard, W. et al. Nature 364, 218–220 (1993).
2. Petit, J. R. et al. Nature 399, 429–436 (1999).
3. Rioual, P. et al. Nature 413, 293–296 (2001).
4. Crutzen, P. J. Nature 415, 23 (2002).
5. Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J. & McNeill, J. R. Ambio 36,
614–621 (2007).
6. Steffen, W. et al. Global Change and the Earth System: A
Planet Under Pressure (Springer Verlag, 2004).
7. Berger, A. & Loutre, M. F. Science 297, 1287–1288 (2002).
8. Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S. R., Foley, J. A., Folke C. & Walker,
B. H. Nature 413, 591–596 (2001).
9. Lenton, T. M. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1786–1793
(2008).
10. Rockstrom, J. et al. Ecol. Soc. (in the press); available from
http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.1fe8f3
3123572b59ab800012568/pb_longversion_170909.pdf
11. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Solomon, S.
et al.) (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
12. Hansen, J. et al. Open Atmos. Sci. J. 2, 217–231 (2008).
13. Johannessen, O. M. Atmos. Oceanic Sci. Lett. 1, 51–56
(2008).
14. Cazenave, A. Science 314, 1250–1252 (2006).
15. Church, J. A. & White, N. J. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, LO1602
(2006).
16. Mace, G. et al. Biodiversity in Ecosystems and Human
Wellbeing: Current State and Trends (eds Hassan, H.,
Scholes, R. & Ash, N.) Ch. 4, 79–115 (Island Press, 2005).
17. Sala, O. E. et al. Science 287, 1770–1776 (2000).
18. Sahney, S. & Benton, M. J. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 275, 759–765
(2008).
19. Díaz, S. et al. Biodiversity regulation of ecosystem services
in Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and
Trends (eds Hassan, H., Scholes, R. & Ash, N.) 297–329
(Island Press, 2005).
20. Folke, C. et al. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35, 557–581
(2004).
21. Chapin, F. S., III et al. Nature 405, 234–242 (2000).
22. Purvis, A. & Hector, A. Nature 405, 212–219 (2000).
23. Foley, J. A. et al. Science 309, 570–574 (2005).
24. Gruber, N. & Galloway, J. N. Nature 451, 293–296 (2008).
25. Machenzie F. T., Ver L. M. & Lerman, A. Chem. Geol. 190,
13–32 (2002).
26. Carpenter, S. R. Regime shifts in lake ecosystems: pattern
and variation, Vol. 15 in Excellence in Ecology Series (Ecology
Institute, 2003).
27. Zillén, L., Conley, D. J., Andren, T., Andren, E. & Björck, S.
Earth Sci. Rev. 91 (1), 77–92 (2008).
28. Bennett, E. M., Carpenter, S. R. & Caraco, N. E. BioScience
51, 227–234 (2001).
29. Handoh, I. C. & Lenton, T. M. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 17,
1092 (2003).
30. Snyder, P. K., Foley, J. A., Hitchman, M. H. & Delire, C. J.
Geophys. Res. Atmos. 109, D21 (2004).
31. Costanza, R. Struct. Change Econ. Dyn. 2(2), 335–357
(1991).
32. Odum, E. P. Ecology and Our Endangered Life-Support
Systems (Sinuaer Associates, 1989).
33. Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J. & Melillo, J.
M. Science 277, 494–499 (1997).
34. Boulding, K. E. The Economics of the Coming Spaceship
Earth in Environmental Quality Issues in a Growing Economy
(ed. Daly, H. E.) (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1966).
35. Arrow, K. et al. Science 268, 520–521 (1995).
36. Bretherton, F. Earth System Sciences: A Closer View (Earth
System Sciences Committee, NASA, 1988).
37. Schellnhuber, H. J. Nature 402, C19–C22 (1999).
38. Turner, B.L. II et al. (eds) The Earth as Transformed by Human
Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere over the
Past 300 Years (Cambridge University Press, 1990).
39. Clark, W. C. & Dickson, N. M. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100,
8059–8061 (2003).
40. Holling, C. S. The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: local
surprise and global change in Sustainable Development
of the Biosphere (eds Clark, W. C. & Munn, R. E.) 292–317
(Cambridge University Press, 1986).
41. Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R. & Kinzig, A. Ecol.
Soc. 9, 5 (2004).
42. Folke, C. Global Environmental Change 16, 253–267 (2006).
43. Kaufmann, S. A. Origins of Order (Oxford University Press,
1993).
44. Holland, J. Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity
(Basic Books, 1996).
45. Lovelock, J. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (Oxford
University Press, 1979).
46. Levin, S. A. Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons
(Perseus Books, 1999).
Editor’s note This Feature is an edited summary of
a longer paper available at the Stockholm Resilience
Centre (http://www.stockholmresilience.org/
planetary-boundaries). To facilitate debate and
discussion, we are simultaneously publishing a
number of linked Commentaries from independent
experts in some of the disciplines covered by the
planetary boundaries concept. Please note that this
Feature and the Commentaries are not peer-reviewed
research. This Feature, the full paper and the expert
Commentaries can all be accessed from http://tinyurl.
com/planetboundaries.
See Editorial, page 447. Join the debate. Visit
http://tinyurl.com/boundariesblog to discuss this
article. For more on the climate, see www.nature.
com/climatecrunch.
Authors
Johan Rockström1,2, Will Steffen1,3, Kevin Noone1,4, Åsa Persson1,2, F. Stuart Chapin, III5, Eric F. Lambin6, Timothy M. Lenton7, Marten Scheffer8, Carl Folke1,9,
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber10,11, Björn Nykvist1,2, Cynthia A. de Wit4, Terry Hughes12, Sander van der Leeuw13, Henning Rodhe14, Sverker Sörlin1,15, Peter K.
Snyder16, Robert Costanza1,17, Uno Svedin1, Malin Falkenmark1,18, Louise Karlberg1,2, Robert W. Corell19, Victoria J. Fabry20, James Hansen21, Brian Walker1,22,
Diana Liverman23,24, Katherine Richardson25, Paul Crutzen26, Jonathan A. Foley27
1Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kräftriket 2B, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden. 2Stockholm Environment Institute, Kräftriket 2B, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden.
3ANU Climate Change Institute, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia. 4Department of Applied Environmental Science, Stockholm University,
10691 Stockholm, Sweden. 5Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775, USA. 6Depar tment of Geography, Université Catholique
de Louvain, 3 place Pasteur, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. 7School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. 8Aquatic Ecology and
Water Quality Management Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 9101, 6700 HB Wageningen, the Netherlands. 9The Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences, PO Box 50005, 10405 Stockholm, Sweden. 10Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PO Box 60 12 03, 14412 Potsdam, Germany.
11Environmental Change Institute and Tyndall Centre, Oxford University, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK. 12ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University,
Queensland 4811, Australia. 13School of Human Evolution & Social Change, Arizona State University, PO Box 872402, Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402, USA. 14Department
of Meteorology, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden. 15Division of History of Science and Technology, Royal Institute of Technology, Teknikringen 76, 10044
Stockholm, Sweden. 16Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, 439 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108-6028, USA. 17Gund
Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA. 18Stockholm International Water Institute, Drottninggatan 33, 11151 Stockholm,
Sweden. 19The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, 900 17th Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington DC 20006, USA. 20Department
of Biological Sciences, California State University San Marcos, 333 S Twin Oaks Valley Rd, San Marcos, CA 92096-0001, USA. 21NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025, USA. 22Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization, Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
23Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK. 24Institute of the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85721, USA. 25The Faculty
for Natural Sciences, Tagensvej 16, 2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark. 26Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, PO Box 30 60, 55020 Mainz, Germany. 27Institute on the
Environment, University of Minnesota, 325 VoTech Building, 1954 Buford Avenue, St Paul, MN 55108, USA.
475
NATURE|Vol 461|24 September 2009 FEATURE
472-475 Opinion Planetary Boundaries MH AU.indd 475472-475 Opinion Planetary Boundaries MH AU.indd 475 18/9/09 11:12:4418/9/09 11:12:44
© 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
