Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 323

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 185 of the 185 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability

Open access
Chan, Kai M. A., Boyd, David R., Gould, Rachelle K., Jetzkowitz, Jens, Liu, Jianguo, Muraca, Barbara, Naidoo, Robin, Olmsted, Paige, Satterfield, Terre, Selomane, Odirilwe, Singh, Gerald G., Sumaila, Rashid, Ngo, Hien T., Boedhihartono, Agni Klintuni, Agard, John, de Aguiar, Ana Paula D., Armenteras, Dolors, Balint, Lenke, Barrington‐Leigh, Christopher, Cheung, William W. L., Díaz, Sandra, Driscoll, John, Esler, Karen, Eyster, Harold, Gregr, Edward J., Hashimoto, Shizuka, Hernández Pedraza, Gladys Cecilia, Hickler, Thomas, Kok, Marcel, Lazarova, Tanya, Mohamed, Assem A. A., Murray‐Hudson, Mike, O'Farrell, Patrick, Palomo, Ignacio, Saysel, Ali Kerem, Seppelt, Ralf, Settele, Josef, Strassburg, Bernardo, Xue, Dayuan, Brondízio, Eduardo S.·2020·People and Nature
DOI 10.1002/pan3.10124
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals. As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability? Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre‐emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision‐making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non‐substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits. Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling‐up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pan3.10124

Cites

185 of 185 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 185 references

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. Aguiar A. P. D., Alternative biodiversity‐inclusive pathways towards achieving the sustainable development goals: A cross‐scale nexus approach, Nature Sustainability, 41
  2. 10.2307/j.ctv301grk · doi:10.2307/j.ctv301grk
  3. Balvanera P., 2019, Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
  4. Barton D. Ring I. Rusch G. Brouwer R. Grieg‐Gran M. Primmer E. …Lienhoop N.(2014).Guidelines for multi‐scale policy mix assessments. POLICYMIX Technical Brief Issue No. 12. Retrieved fromhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/323903928_Guidelines_for_multiscale_policy_mix_assessments
  5. Bean M. J. Bonnie R. &Wilcove D. S.(1999).Mitigation Banking as an Endangered Species Conservation Tool. Environmental Defense Fund in cooperation with Sustainable Conservation. November 11. Retrieved fromhttps://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/elrna30&div=74&id=&page= · doi:10.1016/s0048-9697(99)00315-0
  6. 10.1016/S0048‐9697(99)00315‐0 · doi:10.1016/s0048-9697(99)00315-0
  7. Boyd D. R., 2011, The environmental rights revolution: A global study of constitutions, human rights, and the environment, 10.59962/9780774821629 · doi:10.59962/9780774821629
  8. Brauman K. A., 2019, Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
  9. Brockington D., 2008, Nature unbound: The past, present and future of protected areas
  10. Brondízio E. S., 2019, Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
  11. Brown P., 2009, Right relationship: Building a whole earth economy
  12. Butchart S. H. M., 2019, Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
  13. CBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity), 2010, Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Targets: “Living in Harmony with Nature”, 2
  14. Chan K. M. A., 2019, Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
  15. Chawla L., 2009, Growing up green: Becoming an agent of care for the natural world, The Journal of Developmental Processes, 4, 6
  16. Chester C. C., 2006, Conservation across borders: Biodiversity in an interdependent world
  17. CountryWatch, 2018, Seychelles country review
  18. Coninck H., 2018, Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre‐industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty
  19. Ferrier S., 2016, Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
  20. Griffiths J., 2009, The transition initiative: Changing the scale of change, Orion
  21. 10.1080/00908320.2016.1194092 · doi:10.1080/00908320.2016.1194092
  22. IPBES, 2019, Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
  23. IPCC, 2018, Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre‐industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, 32
  24. IRP, 2019, A report of the international resource panel
  25. Kohler F., 2018, IPBES (2018): The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration, 892
  26. Maller C., 2014, Social practices, intervention and sustainability: Beyond behaviour change, 208
  27. Meadows D. H., 1997, Places to intervene in a system, Whole Earth, 1997, 78
  28. MET/NACSO, 2018, The state of community conservation in Namibia – A review of communal conservancies, community forests and other CBNRM activities (2017 Annual Report)
  29. Morita S., 2005, Rule of law, good governance, and sustainable development
  30. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.030 · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.030
  31. O'Brien K. L., 2009, Global environmental change and human security, 157, 10.7551/mitpress/8210.003.0014 · doi:10.7551/mitpress/8210.003.0014
  32. OECD, 2015, System innovation: Synthesis report
  33. Olmsted P., 2016, Social impact investing and the changing face of conservation finance, 32
  34. 10.1108/14676371011077568 · doi:10.1108/14676371011077568
  35. Porras I., 2011, Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. POLICYMIX Report, 119
  36. Purvis A., 2019, Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
  37. Razzaque J., 2019, Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
  38. Rosa E., 2004, Tracking the human sources of ecological footprints
  39. Rosenberg A. A., 2009, Ecosystem‐based management for the oceans, 294
  40. Sachs J., 2019, Sustainable development report 2019, 465
  41. 10.1007/s10308‐015‐0436‐8 · doi:10.1007/s10308-015-0436-8
  42. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2014, Global biodiversity outlook 4, 155
  43. Seligman M., 2018, Global happiness and wellbeing policy report, 52
  44. Shin Y. J., 2019, Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
  45. Stiglitz J., 2012, The price of Inequality
  46. Suckling K., 2012, On time, on target: How the Endangered Species Act is saving America's wildlife
  47. Turner N., 2014, Ancient pathways, ancestral knowledge: Ethnobotany and ecological wisdom of indigenous peoples of Northwestern North America
  48. UN Environment, 2019, Environmental rule of law: First global report, 285
  49. UNEP, 2016, UNEP frontiers 2016 report: Emerging issues of environmental concern, 18
  50. United Nations, 2015, Resolution adopted by the general assembly
  51. 10.1016/j.envdev.2017.03.001 · doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2017.03.001

Cited by

See all 323

Metadata

Authors
Chan, K. M. A., Boyd, D. R., Gould, R. K., Jetzkowitz, J., Liu, J., Muraca, B., Naidoo, R., Olmsted, P., Satterfield, T., Selomane, O., Singh, G. G., Sumaila, R., Ngo, H. T., Boedhihartono, A. K., Agard, J., de Aguiar, A. P. D., Armenteras, D., Balint, L., Barrington‐Leigh, C., Cheung, W. W. L., Díaz, S., Driscoll, J., Esler, K., Eyster, H., Gregr, E. J., Hashimoto, S., Hernández Pedraza, G. C., Hickler, T., Kok, M., Lazarova, T., Mohamed, A. A. A., Murray‐Hudson, M., O'Farrell, P., Palomo, I., Saysel, A. K., Seppelt, R., Settele, J., Strassburg, B., Xue, D., & Brondízio, E. S.
Venue
People and Nature
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-07-23
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
693-717
ISSN
2575-8314 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/pan3.10124
OpenAlex
W3044606135
Cited by
323
References
185
FWCI
15.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold
Licence
Funders
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (#RGPIN‐2015‐05105)
  • AgBioResearch, Michigan State University
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (#435‐2017‐1071)
  • Environment and Climate Change Canada
  • National Science Foundation (DEB‐1924111, DEB‐1340812)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pan3.10124
The paper
Chan, K. M. A., Boyd, D. R., Gould, R. K., Jetzkowitz, J., Liu, J., Muraca, B., Naidoo, R., Olmsted, P., Satterfield, T., Selomane, O., Singh, G. G., Sumaila, R., Ngo, H. T., Boedhihartono, A. K., Agard, J., de Aguiar, A. P. D., Armenteras, D., Balint, L., Barrington‐Leigh, C., . . . Brondízio, E. S. (2020). Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. People and Nature. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10124

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.