The Water Planetary Boundary: Interrogation and Revision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The planetary boundaries framework has proven useful for many global sustainability contexts, but is challenging to apply to freshwater, which is spatially heterogeneous, part of complex socio-ecological systems and often dominated by local dynamics. To date, the planetary boundary for water has been simplistically defined by as the global rate of blue water consumption, functioning as a proxy for water partitioning in the global hydrological cycle, and considering impacts on rivers’ environmental flow requirements. We suggest the current planetary boundary should be replaced since it does not adequately represent the influence of water in critical Earth System functions such as regional climate and biodiversity. We review the core functions of water in the Earth System and set out a roadmap towards a more robust, holistic, and locally applicable water planetary boundary. We propose defining the boundary using four core functions of water (hydroclimatic regulation, hydroecological regulation, storage, and transport) in conjunction with five water stores (surface water, atmospheric water, soil moisture, groundwater and frozen water). Through the functions, the stores are inextricably interconnected with the atmosphere, land, ocean and biosphere. The roadmap outlined here suggests how to move towards setting six new water planetary sub-boundaries. This ambitious scientific and policy Grand Challenge that could substantially improve our understanding and management of water cycle modifications in the Earth System and provide a complementary approach to existing water management tools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.056 | 0.186 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".