Therefore, in this final post, we would like to conclude the topic of Planetary Health (PH) with a positive outlook and highlight areas of promising potential for positive change that make Planetary Health a vision for the future.

Promoting Planetary Health Education

Human action (and inaction) is the greatest driving force behind global change, threatening the stability of the planet and ourselves. Therefore, in order to facilitate the return of the planet’s systems to “safe zones”, action is required at the root of the problem: human behavior. Education as an important tool for shaping and modifying behavior, plays a crucial role in this context.

Today, many universities around the world offer specific Planetary Health-focused degree programs, modules, and more. According to the Planetary Health Alliance (PHA) (n.d.), “more than 20 university-level centers [are] fully focused on planetary health” worldwide. In 2021, the PHA unveiled a Planetary Health Education Framework (Fig. 1) to provide educators and learners at all levels of higher education with a cohesive foundation that’s applicable across disciplines, sectors, geographies, and different educational approaches. To realize its full potential, however, Planetary Health Education must extend beyond higher education and adult education to reach younger audiences. Educating young people about planetary health is a promising but underexplored opportunity. Research shows that early environmental education influences future behaviors and attitudes, suggesting that introducing planetary health concepts early can help cultivate environmentally conscious adults.

Fig. 1: The planetary health education framework. Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00110-8/fulltext#fig1

Resilient Urban Environments

Urban areas are essential to a sustainable future, bringing both challenges and solutions. Rapid urbanization, combined with the increasing impacts of climate change, requires more resilient and adaptive urban environments. The future of urban resilience depends on multiple aspects, including infrastructure, communities, and ecosystems, all of which must work together to create sustainable, livable spaces for future generations.

Smart cities of the future will integrate renewable energy sources and environmentally friendly materials to increase efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Solar panels, wind turbines, and geothermal systems can decentralize energy production and create resilient urban energy networks. Innovative materials, such as cross-laminated timber, reduce the environmental footprint of construction while improving building performance. Passive cooling systems that rely on natural ventilation, shaded facades, and reflective materials are another example of how urban design can reduce energy demand, especially in warmer climates. These innovations not only support climate goals but also create healthier living conditions for residents.

Incorporating natural elements such as green roofs, vertical gardens, and other urban green spaces into urban planning offers numerous benefits for people and the planet. Green roofs, for example, insulate buildings, reduce heating and cooling needs while absorbing stormwater and improve air quality. Urban green spaces, such as parks and community gardens, help mitigate the effects of urban heat islands by cooling surrounding areas. They also serve as recreational spaces that promote physical and mental well-being, as green spaces reduce stress and increase overall happiness. These spaces can also become important habitats for biodiversity, providing refuge for birds, insects, and other species in the urban environment.

Fig. 2: Growing a Green City. Source: https://www.yournec.org/growing-a-green-city-how-to-build-resilient-and-sustainable-urban-centers/ 

Strengthening Ecosystems

Protecting, enhancing, and where necessary, restoring the world’s ecosystems is essential to maintaining environmental balance and ensuring a sustainable future. In addition to their intrinsic value and importance, ecosystems play a vital role in humans, animals, and the planet and its stability.

Healthy ecosystems provide vital services to people – ecosystem services (ES), the benefits nature provides to people. The four types of support, provisioning, regulating, and cultural contribute uniquely to sustaining life and well-being, enhancing ecological resilience, and promoting economic stability.

Ecosystems are complex and dynamic, requiring equally nuanced conservation and management. Effective strategies vary by ecological and socio-economic context and may include cross-sector collaboration, adaptive management, and accounting for environmental costs. Strengthening existing ecosystems ensures their resilience to environmental stressors and their continued provision of ES to people. Targeted restoration efforts can revitalize degraded ecosystems. In addition, sustainable land and seascape management can include expanding protected areas, integrating biodiversity-friendly planning, and promoting inclusive governance. By prioritizing these actions globally, supported by innovative financing and partnerships, we can protect our planet’s natural resources and support the health of both the environment and communities.

The European Commission highlights several successful nature restoration projects across the Union. In Ireland, for example, peatland restoration efforts have shown useful ways to revive these vital carbon-storing ecosystems and habitats. The restoration of the Skjern River in Denmark has improved water quality, wildlife, tourism, and the local economy.

Advancing a Circular Economy

A circular economy represents a transformative shift from the traditional linear model of “take, make, dispose” to a system designed for regeneration, resilience, and sustainability. This approach revolves around three core principles: designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems.

Central to a circular economy is the concept of zero waste. This includes using materials that are biodegradable or recyclable, and ensuring that product lifecycles consider environmental impact from the start. For example, apparel brands can use natural fibers instead of synthetics to reduce microplastic pollution, while electronics manufacturers can design devices that are easier to disassemble and repair. Maximizing the lifespan of products and materials is another aspect of the circular economy. Initiatives such as repair cafes, secondhand marketplaces, and sharing platforms empower consumers to extend the usefulness of goods, reducing the need for new resource extraction. Industry can adopt strategies such as remanufacturing and refurbishing to breathe new life into used products.

Because a circular economy also seeks to restore and regenerate natural systems, practices such as composting organic waste and sustainable agriculture enrich soil health, contributing to carbon sequestration and increased biodiversity. In urban areas, circular initiatives can include turning food waste into biogas or using gray water for irrigation. These systems not only minimize environmental impact but actively contribute to the regeneration of ecosystems.

By transitioning to a circular economy, we can decouple economic growth from resource consumption, reduce environmental degradation, and build a system that supports both planetary health and human well-being.

Fig. 3: Circular economy. Source: https://research.csiro.au/circulareconomy/about/ 

A Vision for the Future and Call to Action

By reimagining our cities, embracing the circular economy, and fostering cooperation across borders, we can lay the foundation for a more sustainable future. Prioritizing equity and social justice is essential for a sustainable future, as marginalized communities, who are often most affected by crises, must be empowered and included in solutions. Achieving PH requires shared responsibility, global cooperation, innovation, and the integration of environmental and public health policies. Together, we can restore ecosystems, create sustainable food systems, and build resilience to future challenges.

Planetary Health is not just a vision but an urgent call to action. By taking meaningful steps today, we can lay the groundwork for a healthier planet and a better quality of life for generations to come.

This blog entry was written within the Planetary Health Campus Ambassador Programme 2024 of the Planetary Health Alliance. Views expressed may not represent the positions of the Planetary Health Alliance or its membership.

Disclaimer: This blog entry is the final one of four on planetary health.

The post Planetary Health: A Vision for The Future appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Flexitarian, paleo, keto, vegan – with so many diverse diets out there and new ones seemingly being developed each year, finding your perfect fit can feel overwhelming. One recent addition to this list of diets is the Planetary Health Diet (PHD). This addition attempts to tackle two of the biggest challenges we face today regarding nutrition: 1) rising rates of diet-related health problems and 2) the environmental impact of food production. In this entry of our blog series on Planetary Health, we’ll explore why what you eat matters for you and the environment, the origin of the Planetary Health Diet, its benefits for both you and the planet, and why it might be worth trying!

You are what you eat: Why does your diet matter?

“You are what you eat” – a saying many might be familiar with, and it turns out there is truth to it. 

Your diet is an important cornerstone of your health, what you put on your plate is considered to be an important modifiable determinant of health. Good nutrition sustains your body, keeping you energized and functioning all day. On the flip side, inappropriate nutrition can have negative health consequences. A poor diet increases the risk of developing non-communicable diseases, like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and even some types of cancer, not to mention malnutrition.

As a result, different national and international agencies, like the World Health Organization or the European Food Safety Authority, publish nutritional guidelines for an optimal and healthy diet and update them following new scientific developments. Yet, at the end of the day, how you want to get all of these necessary and important macronutrients, micronutrients, and trace elements is ultimately up to you, resulting in the diversity of dietary regimes we see today. However, how and what we eat affects not only ourselves but also the environment and thus other people as well. 

The environmental impact of producing the food we consume is critical. Agricultural food production emits significant amounts of greenhouse gases (25-33% of global emissions), contributing to climate change. Food production has an enormous impact on the Earth’s water resources, with large amounts of freshwater used and the eutrophication of marine and freshwater systems from fertilizer runoff. Speaking of fertilizers, food production also disrupts nitrogen and phosphorus cycles. It also threatens biodiversity, uses about 40% of the Earth’s land surface, and degrades air quality (Fig. 1). In addition, these negative environmental impacts also affect human health.

But here’s the good news: because our diets have such a large impact on the environment and human health, changing the way we eat has the potential to create significant positive change. By adopting more planet-friendly and eco-conscious eating habits, we can take better care of ourselves and the Earth.

What is the Planetary Health Diet?

One planet-conscious eating style is the Planetary Health Diet (PHD), a reference diet designed to be healthy for people and the environment.

The PHD was first described by the EAT-Lancet Commission in 2019. The Commission focused not only on a healthy diet but also on food systems and how to sustainably produce food and feed the growing world population in a healthy, environmentally conscious way, without exploiting and damaging the Earth system. This is reflected in the two main scientific goals that EAT is pursuing with the Planetary Health Diet and its analysis of food systems: 1) healthy diets for all by 2050, and 2) sustainable food production that stays within certain limits to prevent irrevocable changes to the Earth system.

The Planetary Health Diet is a flexitarian diet that focuses on plant-based products while allowing for moderate consumption of animal products (Figure 2).

Why should you give the Planetary Health Diet a Try?

Although the Planetary Health Diet is a relatively new concept, it has already been the focus of some scientific research – with promising results! Researchers have found that following the PHD is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, a reduced chance of developing type 2 diabetes, and possibly even a lower risk of stroke. In addition, some benefits were found in terms of general cardiovascular health and obesity indicators.

In terms of the environmental impact of the PHD, the researchers also found encouraging results: a global adoption of this diet would reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions from a global perspective, although it would increase emissions in mainly low- and middle-income countries.

However, no diet is perfect, and a 2023 study found some shortcomings of the PHD in terms of micronutrient intake when following the diet’s guidelines. However, as with all diets, when following the Planetary Health Diet, it’s up to the individual to make sure they’re getting the nutrients they need, taking into account the amount and bioavailability of different foods. It’s also important to remember that a healthy diet is only part of the picture, with elements such as physical activity and a less sedentary lifestyle also playing a key role.

But when it comes to planetary health, there is no argument against the Planetary Health Diet and its environmental benefits. So if you’re looking for a way to eat healthier and make a positive impact on the environment at the same time, why not give the Planetary Health Diet a try? There are many resources online to help you get started, such as the EAT Commission: https://eatforum.org/planetary-health-recipes/.

Tell us your impressions on diets and come back to check in on the fourth and final part of our blog series on Planetary Health!

This blog entry was written within the Planetary Health Campus Ambassador Programme 2024 of the Planetary Health Alliance. Views expressed may not represent the positions of the Planetary Health Alliance or its membership.

The post A Tough Nut to Crack: Saving the Planet One Meal at a Time appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Without data, it is difficult for scientists to know both the current and previous state of the environment (one might consider this the baseline state, but there can be issues with that – see our previous article on the blog!). This makes it difficult to identify potentially harmful changes that could be occurring or even monitor progress of implemented solutions. Missing or unavailable information also hinders the ability of researchers to model future scenarios and make predictions. Without data, scientists cannot make specialized recommendations or inform policymakers of risks associated with various pathways. Despite this importance, data scarcity remains a problem in environmental science [3], partly due to a lack of access to existing data as well as insufficient monitoring or interpretation capacity.

What can help address this problem?

Lack of access to existing environmental or ecological data can be solved by things like supporting data sharing and open data or following FAIR principles [4]. With data readily available, it can continue to be useful through time to a wider group who may provide reanalysis or reinterpretation. This can also allow for previously existing data to be integrated into new data, thus providing the opportunity for more robust results and conclusions. Additionally, in science it is important to make data available so that results can be replicated and trusted [4, 5]. Another part of the answer is to ensure that conditions are right for collection of new data [3]. This means enhancing capacity building and technology transfer, particularly for researchers in vulnerable areas.

Yet, the investigation of many environmental problems requires both the continual collection and interpretation of very large amounts of data, in some cases from very different parts of the world – which can be a struggle for even the best equipped teams of professional researchers, as they face limitations in their available time and numbers. In such cases, so-called citizen scientists can step in.

Citizen Science: the public can be part of the solution

An increase in the availability and sophistication of technology, data storage and sharing options via the internet, and education have opened possibilities for a wider range of participation in the scientific process. This has contributed to the growth of citizen science, which is a term that describes when the public engages in scientific research. Through citizen science, individuals across many sectors or areas can collaborate with scientists and/or each other to contribute to an increase in scientific knowledge across social science, the arts, technology, medicine, or natural science. It allows participants to take part in the scientific process and creates other co-benefits for citizen scientist participants as well as researchers [6, 8].

Citizen science can provide opportunity to fill gaps in data collection across time and space. In the environmental area, volunteers might participate by submitting observations or tracking abundance of species, taking samples to determine water quality, interpreting images, or other tasks. Yet, participants’ roles may extend past data collection as well. Citizens may help by identifying needs or problems that research could focus on, refining scientific questions, stimulating engagement within the public and among stakeholders, and otherwise providing input from perspectives that often go underrepresented, including from indigenous and local community members [6, 7]. For instance, in community-led citizen science (CCS), participants – aided by professional scientists – direct their own projects, which provides both scientific understanding as well as empowerment and local ownership of the initiative and its outcomes [6].

One important CCS example lies in the Amazon, where the construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric project has severely impacted the flow of the Xinga river since 2016. This has resulted in the loss of breeding habitat and the decimation of fish populations on which local communities like the Juruna rely. The Juruna reached out to scientists to help them document changes in the river’s fish and turtle populations. This collaboration has resulted in not only scientific publications, but has additionally helped the Juruna to document what has been lost to them culturally so that their history is not forgotten. The data have been used to propose more ecologically-sound water regimes- though the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources is still reviewing the proposal- and have also fuelled lawsuits against Norte Energia, the company responsible for Belo Monte [9].

These projects are thus beneficial for both the participants and the professional scientists, resulting in opportunities for problem-solving, learning, and public action as well as the generation of data and the publication of research findings. Outcomes of citizen science can also inform management, conservation actions, education, or policy decisions [6, 7].

Nevertheless, it is important to note that methods of citizen science are not compatible with all research projects, particularly when an initiative requires expensive equipment, utilizes complex or rigorous methods for data collection, or calls for a large time commitment. Concerns may also arise about the data generated by citizen science. For instance, sampling bias may be a problem if data is collected opportunistically, leading to an overrepresentation of data from some areas versus others. Citizen scientists may make mistakes in identification, be inconsistent in following protocol or using equipment, or lack neutrality, which would all impact the data and how it can be used. However, by implementing sufficient training for participants, validation and filtering procedures, statistical approaches, and upholding inclusiveness, these issues can be minimized [6].

The benefits of citizen science are also being recognized by governments, who are increasingly supporting this approach. For example, in 2022 Germany introduced the Citizen Science Strategie 2030 (German language version here). This strategy includes recommendations and outlines opportunities to develop citizen science in Germany and interlink it within both science and society [10]. Though this method is not appropriate for every research question, it is increasingly recognized as a useful and enriching approach that can, when properly executed, produce a variety of rewards for stakeholders across disciplines.

If this article has made you interested in learning more about citizen science, you might be glad to know that the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich will be hosting a Citizen Science Summer School from 04.06.2023 – 09.06.2023. Applications are now open until 01.03.2023!

References

[1] IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3−32. Link here.

[2] Pecl, G., Araújo, M.B., Bell, J.D., et al. 2017. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science (355) 6332. Link here.

[3] Hochkirch, A., Samways, M.J., Gerlach, J. 2020. A strategy for the next decade to address data deficiencyin neglected biodiversity. Conservation Biology 35 (2): 502–509. Link here.

[4] Tedersoo, L., Küngas, R., Oras, E. et al. 2021. Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Sci Data (8) 192. Link here.

[5] Miyakawa, T. 2020. No raw data, no science: another possible source of the reproducibility crisis. Mol Brain (13) 24. Link here.

[6] Fraisl, D., Hager, G., Bedessem, B., et al. 2022. Citizen science in environmental and ecological sciences. Nat Rev Methods Primers (2) 64. Link here.

[7] McKinley, D.C., Miller-Rushing, A.J., Ballard, H.L., et al. 2017. Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biological Conservation (208): 15-28. Link here.

[8] ECSA (European Citizen Science Association). 2015. Ten Principles of Citizen Science. Berlin. Link here.

[9] Moutinho, S. 2023. “A river’s pulse”. Science (379) 6627: 18-23. Link here.

[10] Bonn, A., Brink, W., Hecker, S., et al. 2022. White Paper Citizen Science Strategy 2030 for Germany. Helmholtz Association, Leibniz Association, Fraunhofer Society, universities and non-academic institutions. Link here.

The post Citizen science: when scientists and communities come together appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

The answer is YES, there’s still a difference. It is true that the world has changed a lot since the first wave of feminism, where women sought access to equal education, the right to vote, as well as physical and financial independence. However, there is still a long way to go to achieve true gender equality. A familiar example of this is that – even in the middle of 2022 – there is still a significant wage gap between men and women. In Germany, the difference is 18% and in Europe, it is 13%. Another example of this is the lack of representation in government institutions: the European Parliament is currently made up with only 39.2% women, which is the historical maximum.

Nor should we forget to mention our sisters from the global south and other parts of the world who are currently fighting against a system that neglects justice. These women are redesigning the current legal instruments to counter gender violence. In several states, they have achieved the right to legal, accessible and free abortion. They are seeking to modify the education system to include integral sexual education. We also must recognize the efforts of our ecofeminist sisters who organize, give their time, will, body and life to defend natural resources against large exploitative companies. In this context, it is clear that gender-based abuse is also observed across the environmental scheme during the use, management and/or protection of nature. This shows that being a woman in different social contexts represents different challenges and inequalities.

“Que tú privilegio no nuble tu empatía”

“That your privilege doesn’t cloud your empathy “

Furthermore, Climate Change is a phenomenon that increases inequality and endangers women’s lives. First of all, the climate crisis does not affect everyone in the same way. Women and minorities are the most affected, as in many cases they are responsible for managing, administering and protecting household resources, such as collecting water, caring for backyard gardens to feed their families, managing the wood from their forests, etc. All these activities depend on climatic health, so climate change threatens their livelihoods and leaves them in a vulnerable position. Moreover, structural inequality limits the capacities of communities to adapt to the effects of climate change, which again makes them more vulnerable.

Considering all that has been mentioned, it is important to analyze gender inequality and its relation to the climate crisis through the lens of intersectionality. In this way, we can include the systemic inequalities that are configured from the overlapping of different social factors such as gender, ethnicity and social class. All the situations of violence and inequality faced by women show that being a woman in this society is clearly a disadvantage. A major question arises: if we are aware of the inequality, why does it still exist?

Our current conditions are a response to a historical truth: we live under a patriarchal system. But what do we mean when we talk about patriarchy? Patriarchy is an unequal hierarchical system, which attributes characteristics, roles, status and behavior to each sex based on their gender. It divides women from men based on a supposed female inferiority, giving men the dominant power. According to Kate Millet, patriarchy is a “system of male domination that facilitates the oppression and subordination of women”.

This same relationship of domination and subjugation experienced by feminized bodies is replicated with nature. Both have been objectified and used as a territory of conquest, as objects of exploitation, and are victims of violence. Nature and women are to a large extent victims of the externalities of economic development.

Currently, we live under an economic system that subjugates territories and nature in favor of a supposed economic development based on accumulated production and consumption. Moreover, this economic system is controlled by invisible forces, under the misguided idea of infinite growth and the fantasy of individuality on a planet with limited resources. Therefore, we can say that the climate crisis and gender inequality have patriarchal roots and are partly the result of supremacist capitalism.

Adriana Guzman, an anti-patriarchal community feminist from Bolivia, goes further and refers to patriarchy as “the system of all oppressions, all discriminations and all violence that humanity and nature historically built on women’s bodies”, therefore she considers that all oppressions, such as the exploitation generated by capitalism, are learned directly in women’s bodies.

The relationship of violence and harm against feminized bodies and the environment comes from the same systemic mechanisms. Therefore, we can state that achieving gender equity means ending the patriarchal capitalist system, which means we need a complete deconstruction of social schemes under a scheme of domination. It also means that we should have inclusion of a diversity of ideas and worldviews with which we could build a better reality for society.

It must be noted that, nowadays the same factors, actors and systems that caused the climate crisis are the ones that pretend to look for solutions. Other voices and ideas are ignored, which creates a lack of representativity and stops the development of holistic, integral and effective solutions. Similarly, it is not possible to reach comprehensive goals and solutions to the climate crisis if we do not address our colonial past and the remnants of post-colonialism, as well as the methods of exploitation of territories. Therefore, the ecological and feminist dimensions are essential to transform the conception and management of territories and of planet earth.

Likewise, being aware that patriarchy exists and that it is a structural problem is only the first step in eradicating it. Marilyn Fyre argues that the power of domination exercised by men has been internalized in society for so long that it will be difficult to break it. This system takes shape in everyday life; what may seem normal and correct does not always follow ethical principles. This can be seen in subtle attitudes like mansplaining to situations that threaten our lives such as domestic violence and femicide. For that reason, it is necessary to question our reality and try to reach awareness about the behaviour, rules and norms in our society. A feminist perspective should be included in the government agendas, discussed in the school and universities and must be recognized part of the climate change solutions.

However, patriarchy still shapes our lives. We must not forget that women have to achieve several improvements to make the world more equal. Our current conditions are the result of the strength of our feminist collectives and women ancestors who were labelled as witches or madwomen while being doctors, philosophers, leaders and fighters for rights. They were women who, with the right conditions, managed to change the social structure little by little. Moreover, women collectives and leaders are still fighting to break the system that was designed for favoured men. We are now looking to end inequality and create a new society where the dominant and abusive relationships between the people and nature are broken. There’s still too much to do, but we will be able to shape a new reality.

The post The SDGs Series (Goal 5): Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

The answer might have something to do with baselines – more specifically, Shifting Baselines Syndrome (SBS), a term coined by scientist Daniel Pauly [2]. Pauly, a fisheries scientist himself, pointed out that fisheries scientists tend to take the stock characteristics from the beginning of their career as a baseline condition against which future catch characteristics are compared. When each generation starts their career, stocks have declined – but a new baseline for comparison is set, which leads to a basically unnoticed and gradual disappearance of species [3]. This phenomenon can also be applied more generally: people tend to set baselines for nature based on their early experiences with it. Over time, with a lack of memory, experience, or knowledge, the expectations and “acceptable” condition for the natural environment shifts. What your grandparents would consider degraded might be considered natural by your children. As Pauly notes in his talk, it is in this way that we transform the world – but we don’t remember it. This has impacts on conservation, restoration, and management.

How can we set appropriate goals and judge progress without an appropriate baseline?

Depending on the baseline, “success stories” may be viewed quite differently. One example would be the bison in North America [4]. The bison populations were driven to near extinction by the late 19th century, mainly due to hunting, and numbered less than 1,000 individuals. Today, the estimates lie at 500,000 bison, and this recovery is regarded as a major success conservationists [5]. Yet, the population of bison previously numbered in the tens of millions, and they now occupy less than 1% of their original habitat range [6].

How much does this even matter?

You might be thinking: the world is different now, and ecosystems are not likely to return to long-past baselines anyway. Seeing that today’s conservation efforts are influencing positive change to any degree gives feedback that things can be made better, and that actions make a difference. This might be true, but we must also be aware of what we have lost so that we are not complacent with “miserable leftovers,” as Pauly terms them. With SBS, there is a danger that we accept these leftovers because we do not know that the situation was ever different. Eventually, if we lose these leftovers, even this will not be perceived as a big loss. In this way, SBS accustoms us to progressive environmental degradation, leading to a shift in what is considered desirable, or even worth protecting, in the natural world.

Are there solutions?

One way to combat shifting baseline is to diversify sources of data in science. More methodological scientific record-keeping often does not extend much further than the last 50 or 100 years. By carefully incorporating other sources, such as financial logs, anecdotes, art and literature, or even genetic and archeological data, more information about the past can be understood and knowledge about the past can be preserved [7]. This information is not only useful for scientists or conservation managers – it can also be used for education in the general public. This is key for making people more familiar with the natural environment as well as ensuring that important knowledge about its condition through time is not lost. Another way to help is by supporting people’s connection to the environment. This could be through engaging with citizen science, which not only allows for data collection but also gives the opportunity for non-scientists to interact with nature [3].

[1] Ellis, E., Gauthier, N., Goldewijk, K., et al. (2021). People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years. PNAS 118 (17): e2023483118.

[2] Pauly, D. (1995). Anecdotes and shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10 (10:430).

[3] Soga, M. & Gaston, K. (2018). Shifting baseline syndrome: causes, consequences, and implications. Front. Ecol. Environ, 16(4): 222-230.

[4] Mehrabi, Z. & Naidoo, R. (2022). Shifting baselines and biodiversity success stories. Nature 601: E17–E18.

[5] Sanderson, E., Redford, K, Weber, B., et al. (2008). The Ecological Future of the North American Bison:Conceiving Long-Term, Large-Scale Conservation of Wildlife. Conservation Biology 22(2): 252 – 262.

[6] Boyd, D., & Gates, C. (2006). A Brief Review of the Status of Plains Bison in North America. JOW 45(2): 15 – 21.

[7] Pinnegar, J. & Engelhard, G. (2008). The ‘shifting baseline’ phenomenon: a global perspective. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 18: 1–16.

The post Shifting Baselines appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

        Water is also a vehicle for many bacteria, protozoa and viral pathogens, which can cause diseases associated with gastroenteritis, and even other severe illnesses, such as meningitis and hepatitis [2]. Furthermore, with climate change influencing higher frequency of extreme events, the quantity and quality of water is compromised by both droughts and floods. Hence, the Sustainable Development Goal 6 aims to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all, encompassing six targets to achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water, as well as sanitation and hygiene, improving water quality, increasing water efficiency in the different sectors, implementation of an integrated water resources management, and protection and restoration of ecosystems [3].

Clean Water, Sanitation, and Health

        In 2020, officials recorded that 2 billion people (or 26% of the global population) lack access to safe potable water, and 3.6 billion people (or 46% of the global population) do not have access to safely managed sanitation facilities [4]. Access to clean drinking water and sanitation infrastructure is closely linked to health. In fact, a study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2012 concluded that every US$1.00 invested in sanitation would result in a return of US$5.50 in lower costs for health systems, increasing productivity, and preventing premature deaths [5]. According to WHO data, the region most affected by sanitation deficiency is Sub-Saharan Africa, where 12% of the population has access to basic sanitation facilities, 19% has a limited structure available, 31% has the use of an unimproved system, and 18% practices open defecation (Figure 1). Additionally, other regions that have less than 50% of their population with access to safely managed sanitation systems include: Latin America and Caribbean, Western Asia and Northern Africa, and Central and Southern Asia.

        Experts estimate that the absence of proper water and sanitation facilities is the leading cause of the death for 827,000 people in low- and middle- income countries [5]. The main associated diseases are diarrhoea (responsible for 60% of the aforementioned number of deaths), cholera, typhoid, dysentery, hepatitis A, and polio, besides illnesses caused by intestinal worms, such as schistosomiasis and trachoma, and malnutrition [5; 7]. A sad reality, considering that most of these diseases can be easily preventable with access to potable water and to adequate sanitation systems. For instance, improved water and sanitation access could avert the deaths of children under age 5, which is estimated to be 297,000, as well as stunting [5].

         Furthermore, the current reality of precarious water and sanitation systems in many places around the world makes the fight against the spread of COVID-19 even more challenging. Adequate hygiene measures are key to prevent the spread of the virus. However, in low income countries, there is a high deficiency in water services to provide this benefit of proper hygiene. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, only 26% of its population have access to basic handwashing facilities (soap and water), 40% have limited access (i.e. without water or soap), and 34% completely lack any service or alternative [6]. Moreover, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been reported in wastewater, although the knowledge on the infectivity of the virus via wastewater is limited at the moment [8].

Clean Water, Sanitation, and Climate Change

         Climate change represents a serious threat to the provision of clean freshwater worldwide. This is largely due to the finding that climate change is projected to cause shifts in patterns of precipitation and evaporation, as well as alter the frequency and severity of extreme weather events [9, 10]. Estimates suggest that modifications in surface water area indicative of drought and flooding events are taking place in about one-fifth of the world’s river basins [11]. Droughts decrease water availability while maintaining or increasing demand, leading to water scarcity. Without the water they need for drinking, hygiene, or other uses like agriculture, people suffer. The little-available water can be more likely to contain pollutants, which can impact human health [12]. People may be driven to drink contaminated water, which results in a surge in waterborne diseases. With little or no rainfall and no water for irrigation, agriculture and livestock are negatively affected, and food supply also becomes endangered [13]. Additionally, drought-driven lack of water can cause conflict among users, as they compete for a dwindling resource. When conflict arises, it can impact and divert resources from the community’s infrastructure, including systems to maintain and sanitize fresh water [14].

         Like too little water, too much water is also a problem. When extreme events like flooding occur, there can be negative consequences for water quality and sanitation systems [15]. Flooding events have been associated with the presence of higher levels of microbes and pathogens, as well as metals and chemical and organic contaminants [16, 17]. Increased surface runoff associated with heavy rainfall can pick up sediment, contaminants like fertilizer, and other pollutants, which then might be transferred to a community’s water source [15, 17]. Heavy rainfall and flooding can also overload and damage infrastructure and sanitation systems, leaving communities with contaminated, unsafe water [18].

        Sustainable use of water resources, along with resilient infrastructure, forms a basis for gaining and maintaining access to clean water and sanitation for vulnerable communities across the world. An integrated, participatory approach to management, combined with risk assessment and adaptive solutions, including community lead and/or nature-based solutions, can increase water security and safety [19]. Strengthening cooperation between communities, countries, and other stakeholders, including with transboundary water management, promotes knowledge-sharing, harmonises the use of water resources, and ultimately augments the effectiveness of water governance. Additionally, increasing effective climate action and the protection of natural ecosystems will enhance the stability of the earth system and, thus, of water resources [20, 21].

Conclusions

         Ensuring the availability and accessibility of clean water to all, particularly in the face of ongoing climate change, is a key challenge moving forward. Access to sanitation systems and sufficient quantities of clean, quality water is paramount to human health and helps to fight diseases, including COVID-19. Prevention and investments in safely and sustainably managed water systems and sanitation facilities improve health and quality of life, besides contributing to a positive feedback in the economy for the health system. It is important to have this awareness and continue to develop technologies, form connections among various stakeholders, and engage in action in order to make progress towards the achievement of the targets of the SDG 6 for a universal and equitable access to water and sanitation systems.

References

[1] Bureau of Reclamation: Water Facts – Worldwide water supply

[2] Gall, A.M., Mariñas, B.J., Lu, Y., & Shisler, J.L. (2015). Waterborne Viruses: A Barrier to Safe Drinking Water. PLoS Pathogens, 11(6): e1004867

[3] United Nations: Goal 6 – Ensure access to water and sanitation for all

[4] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Sustainable Development: Goal 6 – Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

[5] World Health Organization: Sanitation Fact sheets

[6] Our World in Data: Clean water and sanitation

[7] World Health Organization: Water, sanitation and hygiene – exposure

[8] Kitajima et al. (2020). SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater: State of the knowledge and research needs. Science of The Total Environment 739: 139076.

[9] IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

[10] Konapala, G., Mishra, A.K., Wada, Y. et al. (2020). Climate change will affect global water availability through compounding changes in seasonal precipitation and evaporation. Nature Communications 11: 3044.

[11] UN Summary Progress Update 2021: SDG 6 – Water and sanitation for all; 

[12] Benotti, M. J., Stanford, B. D., & Snyder, S. A. (2010). Impact of drought on wastewater contaminants in an urban water supply. Journal of environmental quality 39(4): 1196–1200.

[13] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Health Implications of Drought;

[14] Levy, B. S., & Sidel, V. W. (2011). Water rights and water fights: preventing and resolving conflicts before they boil over. American journal of public health, 101(5): 778–780.

[15] Erickson, T. B., Brooks, J., Nilles, E. J., Pham, P. N., & Vinck, P. (2019). Environmental health effects attributed to toxic and infectious agents following hurricanes, cyclones, flash floods and major hydrometeorological events. Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews 22(5-6): 157–171.

[16] Yard, E. E., Murphy, M. W., Schneeberger, C., Narayanan, J., Hoo, E., Freiman, A., Lewis, L. S., & Hill, V. R. (2014). Microbial and chemical contamination during and after flooding in the Ohio River-Kentucky, 2011. Journal of environmental science and health. Part A, Toxic/hazardous substances & environmental engineering, 49(11): 1236–1243.

[17] Sun, R., An, D., Lu, W., Shi, Y., Wang, L., Zhang, C., Zhang, P., Qi, H., & Wang, Q. (2016). Impacts of a flash flood on drinking water quality: case study of areas most affected by the 2012 Beijing flood. Heliyon 2(2): e00071.

[18] McCluskey, J. 2001.Water supply, health and vulnerability in floods. Waterlines. 19(3): 14-17.

[19] Agarwal, A., de los Angeles, M. S., Bhatia, R., Chéret, I., Davila-Poblete, S., Falkenmark, M., Gonzalez-Villarreal, F., Jønch-Clausen, T., Aït Kadi, M., Kindler, J., Rees, J., Roberts, P., Rogers, P., Solanes, M. & Wright, A. (2000). Integrated Water Resources Management. GWP-TAC Background Papers (4). 43 pp.

[20] UNECE – Water and adaptation to climate change

[21] IUCN – Water and climate chance issues brief

The post The SDGs Series (Goal 6): Clean Water and Sanitation for all appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Although economic and social impacts are more apparent, the effects the pandemic has had on the environment and biodiversity are substantial. The Global Risks Report 2022 shows that, since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, risks such as human environmental damage, biodiversity loss, extreme weather, and climate action failure, have worsened by 7.8%, 8.4%, 22.7%, and 25.4%, respectively. Furthermore, climate change failure and extreme weather will soon become a critical threat to the world, followed by biodiversity loss, natural resources crises, and human environmental damage. These five represent 50% of the top ten most severe risks on a global scale.

Nonetheless, the risks are not isolated in themselves, generating repercussions to other risks and vice-versa. For instance, biodiversity losses impact not only their environment and habitats, but also have effects on livelihood crises, infectious diseases spread, and pollution harms to health, to mention a few. International cooperation is essential on directing efforts and resources to mitigate the current reality and potentially change future scenarios before those risks become irreversible or self-reinforcing.

For further insights, you can read the Global Risks Report 2022 clicking here, and watch below the Press Conference of The Global Risks Report 2022, where the speakers discuss key findings from the report:

The post The Global Risks Report 2022: A call for awakening appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

BiodiverCities by 2030(1) is an initiative of the World Economic Forum and the Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute with the Government of Colombia. Together, the organizations gathered a large group of world-renowned experts and professionals from many sectors to use the latest research to improve and have a more inclusive nature-positive urban development. Although there has always been a dichotomy between cities and nature, it is now time to understand and apply nature-positive technologies to urban environments. World statistics show that, by 2030, 60% of the global population will be living in cities (2; 3). The consequences of increasing rural exodus can be positive and negative, ranging from improving lives to exacerbating inequalities and nature degradation. As the world still deals with the COVID-19 pandemic, and the triple planetary crisis of pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate change, it has become increasingly clear how unsustainable our ways of urbanization have been.

In this context, the BiodiverCities by 2030 report states that we must rethink and restructure our cities in a way that rescues nature’s value by bringing harmony and synergy to this dichotomy, and ensuring conservation, sustainability, and health as well as scientific and economic development. In fact, the report finds that investing in nature-based solutions could generate over 59 million jobs in cities around the world and achieve more than $1.5 trillion in annual business value by 2030. One of their key-findings was that the adoption of nature-based solutions is an opportunity that will lead to more resilient and competitive cities.

The report is structured in three main chapters. The first addresses cities’ relationship with nature, covering how the fast expansion of the urban environment has proven to be destructive for the natural environment. They also discuss the importance of cities for the global GDP and  how cities’ impact on nature can also be a critical economic problem, before concluding with a brighter perspective of how the cities of tomorrow can bring healing through nature-positive infrastructure alternatives for urban development. The second covers the economic case for BiodiverCities, advocating further for nature-based urban transformation, showing examples of investment and job opportunities by sector, and how their relevance differs by region. And the third chapter discusses three fundamental systemic shifts towards a nature-positive urban development: urban governance, spatial (re)integration, and investment mobilization. In the end, they conclude with a call for multistakeholder action.

To bring nature forward, respect it, and live in harmony with it should be at the core of our lives and our cities. There, it can only have benefits and growth for the planet, for us, and for future generations. BiodiverCities by 2030 is an incredible initiative with ties to SDG11. Hopefully their message will spread to many nations, improving people’s health and the economy while recognizing planetary boundaries.

The BiodiverCities by 2030 report can be found clicking here. Something to note is that GCE Alumna María Mejía was involved with the BiodiverCities by 2030 Initiative at the National Research Institute of Biodiversity of Colombia. You can read her GCE Alumni interview here.

References

1 BiodiverCities by 2030

2 Destatis – Statistisches Bundesamt (2022)

3 UN Department of Economics and Social Affairs Population Dynamics – World Urbanization Prospects 2018

The post Bringing Nature Forward: The BiodiverCities by 2030 report appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Ecosystem degradation

Human-induced ecosystem degradation has been going on for a long time. It does not only harm nature and wildlife, but also us humans, as our wellbeing is closely linked to ecosystem health. It is estimated that 40% of the world’s population is affected by ecosystem degradation in one form or another, with the greatest impact falling on poor and vulnerable people [2]. Ecosystem degradation takes on many forms, including land use change, pollution, and the introduction of invasive species [2]. The exploitation of natural resources and degradation of ecosystems is happening under ever-accelerating rates – and we are now at risk of reaching tipping points in some ecosystems [2]. Past these points, our ecosystems cannot recover to their natural state anymore. Degraded ecosystems cannot provide us with the same essential ecosystem services any longer and lose their biodiversity and integrity [2].

The degradation of ecosystems has gone so far that simply protecting what is left is not enough. As the UN puts it, “we need more nature” [2]. This can be achieved by restoring the ecosystems that we have destroyed. Ecosystem restoration is defined by the UN as “the process of halting and reversing degradation, resulting in improved ecosystem services and recovered biodiversity” [2]. Engaging with this process looks different around the world, as the action needed depends on local conditions [2].

What the UN does about it

To raise awareness of this issue and combat ecosystem degradation as well as biodiversity loss, the UN initiated the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. This was decided on in a resolution by the UN General Assembly in March 2019 [2]. Its aim is to “prevent, halt and reverse the degradation of ecosystems worldwide” [3], while contributing to combat poverty, climate change, and the current mass extinction. The UN emphasizes that large-scale ecosystem restoration worldwide is needed to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 [3]. Ecosystem restoration can also have direct economic benefits. By the numbers: it is estimated that for every dollar spent on ecosystem restoration, between three and 75$ are returned in form of ecosystem goods and services [3]. Furthermore, ecosystem restoration can contribute immensely to climate change mitigation and future resilience against climate change, reduce the risk of future pandemics, increase food security, and halt biodiversity loss [2].

One of the main goals of this UN Decade is to enhance the understanding of these benefits of successful ecosystem restoration and to include this knowledge in education as well as public and private sector decision-making [3]. Besides this, a goal is to strengthen the commitments and actions on ecosystem restorations at various levels world-wide [3]. The vision of the UN Decade is “a world where – for the health and wellbeing of all life on Earth and that of future generations – the relationship between humans and nature has been restored, where the area of healthy ecosystems is increasing, and where ecosystem loss, fragmentation and degradation has been ended” [3].

Yet, there is currently too little political support and technical capacity to achieve the necessary large-scale changes worldwide. Therefore, the UN Decade works to support governments, NGOs and stakeholders to achieve the vision [3]. They do this, for example, by raising awareness, furthering research and monitoring of global restoration progress, building technical capacity, and creating a platform for actions to take place [3]. UN members are encouraged to integrate ecosystem restoration into national policies and plans, enhance implementation of ecosystem protection and restoration by mobilising resources, and enable scientific research on the impacts of restoration [3]. The UN Decade can also be seen as a catalyser for a decentralized global movement to protect and restore nature [3]. For this, we need people that participate and do the actual work of restoring ecosystems locally – not only during the UN Decade, but also well after 2030.

Taking action

Ecosystem restoration can take on many forms and depends on the ecosystem and its status. Approaches can include repairing the damage that was done to the ecosystem or removing the drivers of ecosystem degradation, thereby inducing the ecosystem to repair itself [2]. All these approaches require time and resources, enabling policies, and knowledge [2]. Ten principals are meant to guide the restoration actions of the UN Decade:

The UN has also published an “Ecosystem Restoration Playbook”, in which it outlines how you can get involved. Examples are creating, joining, or donating to a restoration project, cleaning up your local ecosystem, greening your home, or buying sustainable products. You can also spread the word and raise awareness about ecosystem degradation and restoration. If you take action and become part of the #GenerationRestoration movement, you can make a pledge online. On the UN Decade’s website you can also take an interactive journey through various ecosystems and find upcoming events. Some of them take place online and are free to join!

References:

[1] https://www.un.org/en/observances/international-decades , last accessed 10.10.2021

[2] UNEP (2021). Becoming #GenerationRestoration: Ecosystem restoration for people, nature and climate. Nairobi. Available online: https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/publications/becoming-generationrestoration-ecosystem-restoration-people-nature-and-climate  

[3] UNEP and FAO (2020). Strategy for the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Available online: https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/strategy  

The post “We need more nature” – The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

In the past 20 years, we have seen a continued rise in fast fashion. This term refers to mass-produced, inexpensive clothing that is intended to be stylish yet short-lived [4]. The process for traditional fashion – from design to production to distribution to sales – can take a year to a year and a half to complete and results in one or two seasonal releases per year. The same process takes anywhere from a couple weeks to four months for fast fashion, with up to 24 releases each year [1]. Using a quick-response production framework, fast fashion retailers like Zara and H&M churn out new styles as soon as they pop up on the runway or on celebrities. These offerings are changed very often in stores via a dynamic assortment process, with hundreds of new product introductions per week [1]. Together, these methods encourage frequent consumption of cheaply made, trendy garments and give consumers a sense of urgency about buying products.

We see this shift in business model reflected in consumer habits. At the basic level: the newest styles are available, prices are lower than ever, and people want to buy more. Since 2000, brands have almost doubled their garment production [2]. Between 1996-2014, there was a similar 40% increase in clothing purchases among Europeans [3]. However, all these garments are worn for 36% less time relative to 2005 [2]. In Germany, 16.7 kg of new clothing is bought per person per year, coming in second only to the UK at 26 kg, and around 11 kg is discarded [3]. This acceleration of production and consumption of products comes with a cost that is not reflected on price tags in stores.

The footprint of fast fashion

A significant amount of water is tied up in the production of your wardrobe. In 2015, the fashion industry used up 79 billion cubic meters of it [2, 3]! Much of this lies in cotton, which is the thirstiest fiber used in fashion, though water is also used in dyeing, bleaching, and other processes associated with the manufacture of clothing. With the 2,700 liters of water that is required to produce just one cotton t-shirt, a person could have drinking water for about 2.5 years [3].

Yet, production goes beyond only the use of water. The processes that fall under making fabrics and creating garments require chemical inputs and generate a lot of waste. This includes agrochemicals and petrochemicals associated with natural and synthetic production respectively, as well as solvents used in the manufacture of textiles and creation of specific garments [2]. Lax standards, poor infrastructure, and inadequate management allow for improper application techniques and untreated wastewater, which results in toxins and heavy metal inputs to the local environment [2]. Even once consumers have the garment, they can continue to pollute. Laundering clothes made from synthetic fibers like polyester releases microplastic into the environment, accounting for 35% of oceanic microplastic pollution [2, 3].

Due to their low cost and quality, high availability, and quick turnover of fashion trends, consumers view the clothing that comes as a result of the above processes as disposable. While some are recycled or resold domestically or abroad, up to 85% of textiles are sent to landfills or burned [3, 4]. As a result, we also see a lot of solid waste and associated hazards stemming from the fashion industry [4].

What about greenhouse gases? Estimates from the IPCC suggest that the fashion industry contributes up to 10% of global emissions. These emissions can come from fiber production (particularly of synthetics, which are made from oil), energy use during manufacturing and production of garments, and transport. The specific numbers can vary based on location, as various factories run on different energy sources [2]. Overall, the climate impact of fashion is greater than that of all international flights and maritime shipping combined [3].

Ultimately, industry globalization means that the consequences of fast fashion are not evenly distributed. Garment production, and all that comes along with it, tends to take place in low- or middle-income countries, while consumption is highest in western countries [2, 4]. In this way, unsafe working conditions, water scarcity, and toxic pollution – all leading to significant negative health impacts for people primarily in production countries – are fueled by consumption countries.

Shifting the trajectory

Clearly, the current path of the fashion industry is completely unsustainable and damaging to people and the environment. To address this, we need to see transformations across the board. At the international level, the UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion intends to facilitate change in the industry and turn fashion into a driver of sustainable development by engaging with outreach, knowledge sharing, active collaboration among stakeholders, and identifying synergies. Specific modifications to the current system can include the use of sustainable fabrics (like Lyocell, which is made from the cellulose of bamboo) as well as renewable energy in textile production [2, 4]. Cohesive standards for corporate sustainability should be introduced, as many companies are now taking advantage of greenwashing to market themselves or their products as “eco-friendly” without truly comparative criteria [4]. Policy can also be used as a tool to promote workers’ rights and limit environmental impacts of fast fashion [3, 4]. In line with this is the EU Commission Circular Economy Action Plan, which includes measures to support circularity in the system by improving recycling and ensuring reparability of products as well as giving consumers information on the impacts of the products they buy [3].

On the individual level, people can do their part to change the paradigm of fast fashion by extending the lives of their garments. Simply put, we should be wearing the same clothes for longer. This might involve repairing or reworking older garments. When clothing needs to be replaced, you could try thrifting for new-to-you clothing that still has plenty of life left. Another option that is gaining popularity is renting garments, which is especially useful in the case of a specific event that requires clothing that you might only wear once or twice. However, if you would rather buy fully new, try to focus on quality items, preferably made using sustainable fibers, and choose to support businesses that engage with safer practices which minimize negative impacts on people and the environment [4].

If you are interested in learning more about the impacts of fashion, check out “The Clothes We Wear,” a short documentary from Deutsch Welle, below.

References

[1] Caro F., Martínez-de-Albéniz V. 2015. Fast Fashion: Business Model Overview and Research Opportunities. In: Agrawal N., Smith S. (eds) Retail Supply Chain Management. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 223. Springer, Boston, MA. Access here.

[2] Niinimäki, K., Peters, G., Dahlbo, H. et al. 2020. The environmental price of fast fashion. Nat Rev Earth Environ 1, 189–200. Access here.

[3] European Parliament. 2021. The impact of textile production and waste on the environment. Access here.

[4] Bick, R., Halsey, E. & Ekenga, C.C. 2018. The global environmental injustice of fast fashion. Environ Health 17,92. Access here.

The post The true cost of your closet appeared first on Global Change Ecology.