Annual Review of Environment and Resources - Volume 44, 2019

Antarctica and the Southern Ocean comprise a critical part of the Earth System. Their environments are better understood than ever before, yet the region remains poorly considered among international agreements to improve the state of the global environment. In part the situation owes to isolated regional regulation within the Antarctic Treaty System, and in part to the dated notion that Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are well conserved and relatively free from human impact. Here we review growth in knowledge of Antarctic environments and anthropogenic pressures on them. We show that the region's unusual diversity is facing substantial local and globally mediated anthropogenic pressure, on a par with environments globally. Antarctic environmental management and regulation is being challenged to keep pace with the change. Much benefit can be derived from consideration of Antarctic environmental and resource management in the context of global agreements.

Biodiversity on marine islands is characterized by unique biogeographic, phylogenetic and functional characteristics. Islands hold a disproportionate amount of the world's biodiversity, and they have also experienced a disproportionate loss of it. Following human contact, island biodiversity has sustained negative human impacts increasing in rate and magnitude as islands transitioned from primary through secondary to tertiary economies. On islands, habitat transformation and invasive non-native species have historically been the major threats to biodiversity, and although these threats will continue in new forms, new impacts such as human-induced climate change and sea-level rise are emerging. Island biodiversity is changing with some species going extinct, others changing in abundance, non-native species becoming a part of many ecosystems, and humans shaping many ecological processes. Islands thus are microcosms for the emerging biodiversity and socioecological landscapes of the Anthropocene. Islands will require new strategies for the protection and restoration of their biodiversity, including maintaining biological and cultural heritage through regenerative practices, mainstreaming biodiversity in cultural and production landscapes, and engaging with the reality of novel ecosystems.

I review the shocking current status of terrestrial mammals and then describe an approach to solving it, embracing a continuum of spatial and intellectual scales, from groundedness to geopolitics. Starting with an illustrative arena, the interface between agriculture and wildlife, I then outline the litany of threats to mammals and some successful approaches to their conservation, and document some broad-scale patterns regarding ecosystems, the mammalian communities within, and some implications for conservation. Observing that the battle for mammalian conservation is being badly lost, I dedicate the third part of this article to a combination of top-down and bottom-up, interdisciplinary studies, aspiring to a holistic approach that sets conservation in the wider sphere of the human enterprise and that I term transdisciplinary conservation.

Intertidal mangrove forests are a dynamic ecosystem experiencing rapid changes in extent and habitat quality over geological history, today and into the future. Climate and sea level have drastically altered mangrove distribution since their appearance in the geological record ∼75 million years ago (Mya), through to the Holocene. In contrast, contemporary mangrove dynamics are driven primarily by anthropogenic threats, including pollution, overextraction, and conversion to aquaculture and agriculture. Deforestation rates have declined in the past decade, but the future of mangroves is uncertain; new deforestation frontiers are opening, particularly in Southeast Asia and West Africa, despite international conservation policies and ambitious global targets for rehabilitation. In addition, geological and climatic processes such as sea-level rise that were important over geological history will continue to influence global mangrove distribution in the future. Recommendations are given to reframe mangrove conservation, with a view to improving the state of mangroves in the future.

It has been estimated that one-third of global food is lost or wasted, entailing significant environmental, economic, and social costs. The scale and impact of food loss and waste (FLW) has attracted significant interest across sectors, leading to a relatively recent proliferation of publications. This article synthesizes existing knowledge in the literature with a focus on FLW measurement, drivers, and solutions. We apply the widely adopted DPSIR (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) framework to structure the review. Key takeaways include the following: Existing definitions of FLW are inconsistent and incomplete, significant data gaps remain (by food type, stage of supply chain, and region, especially for developing countries), FLW solutions focus more on proximate causes rather than larger systemic drivers, and effective responses to FLW will require complementary approaches and robust evaluation.

This article presents a critical assessment of the literature on sustainable consumption in the global North and South, in the context of accelerated and megascale transitions that are needed across all human activities, in ways that “leave no one behind,” as envisaged in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It challenges two dominant, related research foci: an emphasis on the individual and individual aspirations of the good life, and the policy incrementalism of rational, ecological modernization. Although conceding individuals must act consciously to advance sustainability, nuanced interpretations of collective sustainable living rarely feature in mainstream research. Discussion highlights values of extended family, tribe and community solidarity, and human and nonhuman interrelationships for harmonious, peaceful, spiritual, and material coexistence. Concepts such as Ahimsa (India), Buen Vivir (South America), Ubuntu (Africa), Hauora (New Zealand), or Shiawase and Ikigai (Japan), for example, can enrich understandings of sustainable living as long-term collective action for sustainable development and reducing climate change.

We compile global data to examine the current status, trends, threats, and opportunities in the world's wild-capture fisheries. We find that global fisheries have largely diverged—well-managed, often industrial fisheries tend to be in reasonably good health, while coastal fisheries, often from low-governance regions, tend to be in poor health. Good governance seems to play a central role, and we summarize key findings from the literature on how effective fishery management can simultaneously increase food security, livelihoods, and conservation outcomes. Other solutions, such as marine protected areas and big data, can be useful but will not, by themselves, solve the main fishery challenges. We conclude by examining notorious threats, such as climate change and lack of governance on the high seas, and find that these can be largely neutralized with good fishery management, suggesting that overall, the future of wild fisheries can be bright with effective fishery management interventions.

Illegal wildlife trade (IWT) has increased in profile in recent years as a global policy issue, largely because of its association with declines in prominent internationally trafficked species. In this review, we explore the scale of IWT, associated threats to biodiversity, and appropriate responses to these threats. We discuss the historical development of IWT research and highlight the uncertainties that plague the evidence base, emphasizing the need for more systematic approaches to addressing evidence gaps in a way that minimizes the risk of unethical or counterproductive outcomes for wildlife and people. We highlight the need for evaluating interventions in order to learn, and the importance of sharing datasets and lessons learned. A more collaborative approach to linking IWT research, practice, and policy would better align public policy discourse and action with research evidence. This in turn would enable more effective policy making that contributes to reducing the threat to biodiversity that IWT represents.

Ecotourism originated in the 1980s, at the dawn of sustainable development, as a way to channel tourism revenues into conservation and development. Despite the “win-win” idea, scholars and practitioners debate the meaning and merits of ecotourism. We conducted a review of 30 years of ecotourism research, looking for empirical evidence of successes and failures. We found the following trends: Ecotourism is often conflated with outdoor recreation and other forms of conventional tourism; impact studies tend to focus on either ecological or social impacts, but rarely both; and research tends to lack time series data, precluding authors from discerning effects over time, either on conservation, levels of biodiversity, ecosystem integrity, local governance, or other indicators. Given increasing pressures on wild lands and wildlife, we see a need to add rigor to analyses of ecotourism. We provide suggestions for future research and offer a framework for study design and issues of measurement and scaling.

Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal (GGR) include afforestation or reforestation (AR), wetland restoration, soil carbon sequestration (SCS), biochar, terrestrial enhanced weathering (TEW), and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). We assess the opportunities and risks associated with these options through the lens of their potential impacts on ecosystem services (Nature's Contributions to People; NCPs) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We find that all land-based GGR options contribute positively to at least some NCPs and SDGs. Wetland restoration and SCS almost exclusively deliver positive impacts. A few GGR options, such as afforestation, BECCS, and biochar potentially impact negatively some NCPs and SDGs, particularly when implemented at scale, largely through competition for land. For those that present risks or are least understood, more research is required, and demonstration projects need to proceed with caution. For options that present low risks and provide cobenefits, implementation can proceed more rapidly following no-regrets principles.

Sanitation research focuses primarily on containing human waste and preventing disease; thus, it has traditionally been dominated by the fields of environmental engineering and public health. Over the past 20 years, however, the field has grown broader in scope and deeper in complexity, spanning diverse disciplinary perspectives. In this article, we review the current literature in the range of disciplines engaged with sanitation research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We find that perspectives on what sanitation is, and what sanitation policy should prioritize, vary widely. We show how these diverse perspectives augment the conventional sanitation service chain, a framework describing the flow of waste from capture to disposal. We review how these perspectives can inform progress toward equitable sanitation for all [i.e., Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6]. Our key message is that both material and nonmaterial flows—and both technological and social functions—make up a sanitation “system.” The components of the sanitation service chain are embedded within the flows of finance, decision making, and labor that make material flows of waste possible. The functions of capture, storage, transport, treatment, reuse, and disposal are interlinked with those of ensuring equity and affordability. We find that a multilayered understanding of sanitation, with contributions from multiple disciplines, is necessary to facilitate inclusive and robust research toward the goal of sanitation for all.

Co-production has become a cornerstone of research within the sustainability sciences, motivating collaborations of diverse actors to conduct research in the service of societal and policy change. This review examines theoretical and empirical literature from sustainability science, public administration, and science and technology studies (STS) with the intention of advancing the theory and practice of co-production within sustainability science. We argue that co-production must go beyond stakeholder engagement by scientists to the more deliberate design of societal transitions. Co-production can contribute to such transitions by shifting the institutional arrangements that govern relationships between knowledge and power, science and society, and state and citizens. We highlight critical weaknesses in conceptualizations of co-production within sustainability sciences with respect to power, politics, and governance. We offer suggestions for how this can be rectified through deeper engagement with public administration and STS to offer a broad vision for enhancing the use, design, and practice of a more reflexive co-production in sustainability science.

Biodiversity conservation interventions often aim to benefit both nature and people; however, the social impacts of these interventions remain poorly understood. We reviewed recent literature on the social impacts of four marine conservation interventions to understand the synergies, tradeoffs, and equity (STE) of these impacts, focusing on the direction, magnitude, and distribution of impacts across domains of human wellbeing and across spatial, temporal, and social scales. STE literature has increased dramatically since 2000, particularly for marine protected areas (MPAs), but remains limited. Few studies use rigorous counterfactual study designs, and significant research gaps remain regarding specific wellbeing domains (culture, education), social groups (gender, age, ethnic groups), and impacts over time. Practitioners and researchers should recognize the role of shifting property rights, power asymmetries, individual capabilities, and resource dependency in shaping STE in conservation outcomes, and utilize multi-consequential frameworks to support the wellbeing of vulnerable and marginalized groups.

After several years of REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries) readiness, countries are starting to move toward REDD+ implementation and accessing results-based payments (RBPs). Currently various parallel processes for accessing RBPs exist, including project and jurisdictional—approaches that often operate under a nascent national framework. This review is structured around the key considerations for countries to implement REDD+ and access RBPs. It offers a discussion focusing on three areas that are crucial for the success of REDD+: (a) REDD+ in the context of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), (b) the role of the private sector in achieving emissions reductions, and (c) access to RBPs for REDD+. We present some key considerations for future issues and possible successes of REDD+ implementation.

Solar geoengineering research in the social sciences and humanities has largely evolved in parallel with research in the natural sciences. In this article, we review the current state of the literature on the ethical, legal, economic, and social science aspects of this emerging area. We discuss issues regarding the framing and futures of solar geoengineering, empirical social science on public views and public engagement, the evolution of ethical concerns regarding research and deployment, and the current legal and economic frameworks and emerging proposals for the regulation and governance of solar geoengineering.

The extent to which natural capital can be substituted with manufactured or human capital in production is a key determinant of the possibility of long-run sustainable economic development. We review empirical literature pertaining to the degree of substitutability between natural capital and other forms of capital. We find that most available substitutability estimates do not stand up to careful scrutiny. Moreover, accurate substitutability estimates are even more difficult to produce for unpriced or mispriced resources. Finally, we provide evidence from industrial energy use, and agricultural land use, that suggests substitutability of natural capital with other forms of capital may be low to moderate.