Dataset Information

Powering sustainable development within planetary boundaries.

ABSTRACT: The concept of planetary boundaries identifies a safe space for humanity. Current energy systems are primarily designed with a focus on total cost minimization and bounds on greenhouse gas emissions. Omitting planetary boundaries in energy systems design can lead to energy mixes unable to power our sustainable development. To overcome this conceptual limitation, we here incorporate planetary boundaries into energy systems models, explicitly linking energy generation with the Earth's ecological limits. Taking the United States as a testbed, we found that the least cost energy mix that would meet the Paris Agreement 2 degrees Celsius target still transgresses five out of eight planetary boundaries. It is possible to meet seven out of eight planetary boundaries concurrently by incurring a doubling of the cost compared to the least cost energy mix solution (1.3% of the United States gross domestic product in 2017). Due to the stringent downscaled planetary boundary on biogeochemical nitrogen flow, there is no energy mix in the United States capable of satisfying all planetary boundaries concurrently. Our work highlights the importance of considering planetary boundaries in energy systems design and paves the way for further research on how to effectively accomplish such integration in energy related studies.

SUBMITTER: Algunaibet IM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6592157 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The planetary boundaries (PBs) represent a well-known concept, which helps identify whether production and consumption systems are environmentally sustainable in absolute terms, namely compared to the Earth's ecological limits and carrying capacity. In this study, the impacts of production and consumption of the European Union in 2010 were assessed by means of life cycle assessment (LCA)-based indicators and compared with the PBs. Five different perspectives were adopted for assessing the impacts: a production perspective (EU Domestic Footprint) and four distinct consumption perspectives, resulting from alternative modelling approaches including both top-down (input-output LCA) and bottom-up (process-based LCA). Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results were assessed against LCIA-based PBs, which adapted the PBs framework to the LCIA indicators and metrics of the Environmental Footprint method (EF). Global environmental impacts transgressed several LCIA-based PBs. When assessing the overall environmental impacts of EU consumption compared to the global LCIA-based PBs, impacts of EU consumption related to climate change, particulate matter, land use and mineral resources were close or already transgressed the global boundaries. The EU, with less than 10% of the world population, was close to transgress the global ecological limits. Moreover, when downscaling the global PBs and comparing the impacts per capita for an average EU citizen and a global one, the LCIA-PBs were significantly transgressed in many impact categories. The results are affected by uncertainty mainly due to: (a) the intrinsic uncertainties of the different LCA modelling approaches and indicators; (b) the uncertainties in estimating LCIA-based PBs, due to the difficulties in identifying limits for the Earth's processes and referring them to LCIA metrics. The results may anyway be used to define benchmarks and policy targets to ensure that consumption and production in Europe remains within safe ecological boundaries, as well as to understand the magnitude of the effort needed to reduce the impacts.

Project description:ObjectiveExamine care integration-efforts to unify disparate parts of health care organizations to generate synergy across activities occurring within and between them-to understand whether and at which organizational level health systems impact care quality and staff experience.Data sourcesSurveys administered to one practice manager (56/59) and up to 26 staff (828/1360) in 59 practice sites within 24 physician organizations within 17 health systems in four states (2017-2019).Study designWe developed manager and staff surveys to collect data on organizational, social, and clinical process integration, at four organizational levels: practice site, physician organization, health system, and outside health systems. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and regression.Principal findingsManagers and staff perceived opportunity for improvement across most types of care integration and organizational levels. Managers/staff perceived little variation in care integration across health systems. They perceived better care integration within practice sites than within physician organizations, health systems, and outside health systems-up to 38 percentage points (pp) lower (P < .001) outside health systems compared to within practice sites. Of nine clinical process integration measures, one standard deviation (SD) (7.2-pp) increase in use of evidence-based care related to 6.4-pp and 8.9-pp increases in perceived quality of care by practice sites and health systems, respectively, and a 4.5-pp increase in staff job satisfaction; one SD (9.7-pp) increase in integration of social services and community resources related to a 7.0-pp increase in perceived quality of care by health systems; one SD (6.9-pp) increase in patient engagement related to a 6.4-pp increase in job satisfaction and a 4.6-pp decrease in burnout; and one SD (10.6-pp) increase in integration of diabetic eye examinations related to a 5.5-pp increase in job satisfaction (all P < .05).ConclusionsMeasures of clinical process integration related to higher staff ratings of quality and experience. Action is needed to improve care integration within and outside health systems.

Dataset Information

Powering sustainable development within planetary boundaries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets