CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,452

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A good life for all within planetary boundaries

O’Neill, Daniel W., Fanning, Andrew L., Lamb, William F., Steinberger, Julia K.·2018·Nature Sustainability
DOI 10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4

Cites

7 of 7 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In reality, there is plenty of money and resources to go around at a global scale.

    “In reality, there is plenty of money and resources to go around at a global scale (O'Neill et al., 2018).”

    From Archaeology in 2022: Counter‐myths for hopeful futures (2024) · cites this paper as O'Neill et al., 2018

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Raworth, K. A Safe and Just Space for Humanity: Can We Live Within the Doughnut? (Oxfam, Oxford, UK, 2012).
  2. Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Hoekstra, A. Y. & Wiedmann, T. O. Humanity’s unsustainable environmental footprint. Science 344, 1114–1117 (2014). · DOI
  4. Fang, K., Heijungs, R. & De Snoo, G. R. Understanding the complementary linkages between environmental footprints and planetary boundaries in a footprint-boundary environmental sustainability assessment framework. Ecol. Econ. 114, 218–226 (2015). · DOI
  5. Sandin, G., Peters, G. M. & Svanström, M. Using the planetary boundaries framework for setting impact-reduction targets in LCA contexts. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 1684–1700 (2015). · DOI
  6. Häyhä, T., Lucas, P. L., van Vuuren, D. P., Cornell, S. E. & Hoff, H. From planetary boundaries to national fair shares of the global safe operating space—how can the scales be bridged? Glob. Environ. Chang. 40, 60–72 (2016). · DOI
  7. Nykvist, B. et al. National Environmental Performance on Planetary Boundaries. (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, 2013).
  8. Dao, H. et al. Environmental Limits and Swiss Footprints Based on Planetary Boundaries. (UNEP/GRID-Geneva and University of Geneva, Geneva, 2015).
  9. Hoff, H., Nykvist, B. & Carson, M. Living Well, Within the Limits of Our Planet? Measuring Europe’s Growing External Footprint (Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden, 2014).
  10. Cole, M. J., Bailey, R. M. & New, M. G. Tracking sustainable development with a national barometer for South Africa using a downscaled “safe and just space” framework. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, E4399–E4408 (2014). · DOI
  11. Dearing, J. A. et al. Safe and just operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Chang. 28, 227–238 (2014). · DOI
  12. Baer, P. The greenhouse development rights framework for global burden sharing: reflection on principles and prospects. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 4, 61–71 (2013). · DOI
  13. D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F. & Kallis, G. Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era (Routledge, New York, 2014). · DOI
  14. Hoekstra, A. Y., Mekonnen, M. M., Chapagain, A. K., Mathews, R. E. & Richter, B. D. Global monthly water scarcity: blue water footprints versus blue water availability. PLoS. ONE 7, e32688 (2012). · DOI
  15. Lenzen, M., Murray, J., Sack, F. & Wiedmann, T. Shared producer and consumer responsibility: theory and practice. Ecol. Econ. 61, 27–42 (2007). · DOI
  16. Doyal, L. & Gough, I. A Theory of Human Need (Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK, 1991). · DOI
  17. Gough, I. Climate change and sustainable welfare: the centrality of human needs. Cambr. J. Econ. 39, 1191–1214 (2015). · DOI
  18. Daly, H. E. Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just, and sustainable. Ecol. Econ. 6, 185–193 (1992). · DOI
  19. Ekins, P., Simon, S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C. & De Groot, R. A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 44, 165–185 (2003). · DOI
  20. Meadows, D. H. Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development: A Report to the Balaton Group. (The Sustainability Institute, Hartland, VT, 1998).
  21. Fanning, A. L. & O’Neill, D. W. Tracking resource use relative to planetary boundaries in a steady-state framework: a case study of Canada and Spain. Ecol. Indic. 69, 836–849 (2016). · DOI
  22. O’Neill, D. W. The proximity of nations to a socially sustainable steady-state economy. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 1213–1231 (2015). Part A. · DOI
  23. Meadows, D. Leverage points: places to intervene in a system. Solutions 1, 41–49 (2009).
  24. Cullen, J. M., Allwood, J. M. & Borgstein, E. H. Reducing energy demand: what are the practical limits? Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 1711–1718 (2011). · DOI
  25. Jo, T.-H. Social provisioning process and socio-economic modeling. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 70, 1094–1116 (2011). · DOI
  26. Brand-Correa, L. I. & Steinberger, J. K. A framework for decoupling human need satisfaction from energy use. Ecol. Econ. 141, 43–52 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  27. Steinberger, J. K. & Roberts, J. T. From constraint to sufficiency: the decoupling of energy and carbon from human needs, 1975–2005. Ecol. Econ. 70, 425–433 (2010). · DOI
  28. Lamb, W. F. & Rao, N. D. Human development in a climate-constrained world: what the past says about the future. Glob. Environ. Chang. 33, 14–22 (2015). · DOI
  29. Knight, K. W. & Rosa, E. A. The environmental efficiency of well-being: a cross-national analysis. Soc. Sci. Res. 40, 931–949 (2011). · DOI
  30. Hoornweg, D., Hosseini, M., Kennedy, C. & Behdadi, A. An urban approach to planetary boundaries. Ambio 45, 567–580 (2016). · DOI
  31. Kastner, T., Erb, K.-H. & Haberl, H. Global human appropriation of net primary production for biomass consumption in the European Union, 1986–2007. J. Ind. Ecol. 19, 825–836 (2015). · DOI
  32. Running, S. W. A measurable planetary boundary for the biosphere. Science 337, 1458–1459 (2012). · DOI
  33. Costanza, R. et al. Quality of life: an approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecol. Econ. 61, 267–276 (2007). · DOI
  34. O’Neill, J. Citizenship, well-being and sustainability: Epicurus or Aristotle? Anal. Krit. 28, 158–172 (2006). · DOI
  35. Haberl, H. et al. Natural and socioeconomic determinants of the embodied human appropriation of net primary production and its relation to other resource use indicators. Ecol. Indic. 23, 222–231 (2012). · DOI
  36. United Nations World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, DVD Edition (Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, 2015).
  37. Princen, T. The Logic of Sufficiency (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2005).
  38. Costanza, R. et al. Time to leave GDP behind. Nature 505, 283–285 (2014). · DOI
  39. Clarke, L. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) 413–510 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2014).
  40. Creutzig, F. et al. The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change. Nat. Energy 2, 17140 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  41. McGlade, C. & Ekins, P. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 517, 187–190 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  42. Grasso, M. Sharing the emission budget. Polit. Stud. 60, 668–686 (2012). · DOI
  43. Gallup International Association Voice of the People Millennium Survey, 2000 (Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2009); https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR24661.v1 · DOI
  44. Lenzen, M., Kanemoto, K., Moran, D. & Geschke, A. Mapping the structure of the world economy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 8374–8381 (2012). · DOI
  45. Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K. & Geschke, A. Building Eora: a global multi-regional input-output database at high country and sector resolution. Econ. Sys. Res. 25, 20–49 (2013). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F., & Steinberger, J. K.
ORCID
Venue
Nature Sustainability
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-02-05
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
88-95
ISSN
2398-9629
DOI
10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4
Cited by
1,452
References
7
Language
en
Licence

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