FUTURE EARTH
RISKS PERCEPTIONSREPORT 2020
1st Edition

1

REPORT TEAM
Future EarthDr. Sylvia Wood
Dr. Jennifer Garard
Dr. Amy Luers

Scientific Advisory Committee
Dr. Kalpana Chaudhari, Institute for Sustainable Development and Research, ISDR
Dr. Matthias Garschagen, Department of Geography, Human-Environment Relations, Ludwig-MaximilliansUniversität München
Dr. Maria Ivanova, Center for Governance and Sustainability, John W. McCormack Graduate School of
Policy and Global Studies, University of Massachusetts
Dr. Markus Reichstein, Department of Biogeochemical Integration, Max Planck Institute for
Biogeochemistry
Dr. Qian Ye, State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Beijing Normal
University

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the scientists who participated in the Global Risks Scientists’ Perception survey 2019.

Suggested Citation
Future Earth, 2020. Risks Perceptions Report 2020: First Edition. Future Earth1

Executive Summary
As humanity’s size and impact on the planet grows, so too do the risks we face. Global risks are becoming
increasingly complex and interrelated, challenging the ability of any one community to accurately and legitimately
appraise them. This report aims to bring the voices of scientists into the growing dialogue on global risks by capturing
and synthesizing input from the global change science community. This community spans physical, natural and social
sciences and its explicit focus on interactions amongst natural and social systems provides a unique perspective that
can help to deepen our understanding of global risks and their interconnections.
In this report we summarize key findings from a survey on global risks perceptions of over 200 global change
scientists1 from 52 countries. A key message emerging from the survey is that there are strong interconnections
among a particular set of global risks: climate change, extreme weather, biodiversity loss, food crises and water
crises. Scientists identified these five global risks as having the greatest potential for synergistic effects that could leadto a global systemic crisis. Four of them were also perceived as the most urgent risks facing us in the coming decade.
Together these five risks threaten the continued integrity of the biosphere and its capacity to support itself and human
life. This collective perspective underscores the crucial need to consider societal risks and environmental risks jointly
rather than in isolation.
Scientists further stressed the failure to adequately address and mitigate climate change as a critical global risk
across many different sections of the survey. As well as being ranked among the top most likely and most impactfulrisks by surveyed scientists, climate change was also the most frequently included global risk in the sets of risks withthe potential to lead to a global systemic crisis. Furthermore, it was highlighted, alongside biodiversity loss andecosystem collapse, as a key global risk that we are committing to today, that will put us on a path to irreversible anddevastating change. These results are even more worrisome in light of the serious concerns that scientists haveraised about our capacity to keep global temperature rise below 2ºC of warming.
The next decade will be critical for ensuring a more secure, prosperous and equitable world. However, there is a
growing existential threat to humanity being driven by the increasing frequency and intensity of global risks and theirinterconnections. To address this, we need to open the dialogue on risk to a diversity of voices, allowing us to assess
a complex issue from multiple perspectives. Ultimately, we strive to enrich our understanding of risks through dialogue
and to move the global narrative towards common solutions. We hope this report, and future iterations, will help move
us forward on this path.

1 Scientists were defined as respondents with at least a Master’s degree and one or more years of experience working intheir area of expertise.

iTable of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ I
MOTIVATION FOR THE REPORT ........................................................................................................................ 1
RATIONALE .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................... 2
SCIENTISTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GLOBAL RISKS ............................................................................................ 2
TOP GLOBAL RISKS ............................................................................................................................................. 3
GLOBAL SYSTEMIC RISKS .................................................................................................................................... 4
COMMITTED RISKS ............................................................................................................................................... 5
FUTURE DIRECTIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 6
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................................... 8
PHOTO CREDITS................................................................................................................................................... 9ii

Motivation for the Report

number of other factors. Only through more inclusive
dialogues and a stronger understanding of the forcesthat shape our perceptions of risk can different
segments of society jointly move towards developing
common strategies to mitigate and adapt to them.
Such collective action will only come about when there
is a common and shared sense of risk.

There is increasing recognition across multiple sectorsof society that the global risks we face are increasingly
complex, uncertain, and systemic. Understanding
global risks is essential to effectively respond to andgovern them. Future Earth’s Global Risks Perceptions
Initiative strives to capture and analyze
the perceptions on global risks of multiple scientificcommunities. Our aim is to spark and inform a morepluralistic dialogue around risks that draws on adiversity of experience and knowledge.

Through the Global Risks Perceptions Initiative, Future
Earth is working to bring more voices into the global
dialogue on risks through expert community surveys,
facilitated online dialogues, and new partnerships.
This inaugural edition of the Future Earth Risks
Perceptions Report 2020 presents the results from the2019 Global Risks Scientists’ Perception survey.

In this report, we capture and summarize theperceptions of the global change scientific community
on global risks and their interconnections. The globalchange community represents a body of scientists at
the forefront of research into planetary-level changes
in the Earth system – in both natural and humansystems. As such, it has a significant voice to add tothe conversation on global risks in its capacity toprovide science-informed perspectives. This reportcomplements other major risk assessments conductedwith other communities to start a conversation on our
respective perceptions of risk. Ultimately, we strive toenrich our understanding of risks throughdialogue. This report, and future iterations of it, areimportant for cultivating global narratives for solutions.

Rationale
How we perceive risk affects how we act on it2.
It is critical that we accurately assess the full range ofrisks to humanity and the planet. Over the past 15
years, dialogues and framings of global risks havebeen strongly shaped by the World Economic Forum’s
annual Global Risks Report, which surveys the global
risks perceptions of world leaders from business,academic, and policy spheres. Yet, as global risks
become increasingly complex and interrelated, ourability to accurately and legitimately appraise theserisks requires a wider range of communities assessingthem.
Around the world, people's vulnerability to hazards
differs based on their location, socio-economic status,
gender, age, education, cultural background, and a

2 See, for example, Slovic, P. (Ed.). 2000. The Perceptionof Risk. London, England: Earthscan Publications.

1Introduction

To capture these perceptions, Future Earth conducted
the first Global Risks Scientists’ Perception Survey infall 2019. We surveyed over 220 global change
scientists in more than 52 countries with expertise
spanning the natural, physical, and social sciences.
The survey gathered information on the perceptions ofexperts on the top global risks facing humanity andtheir interconnections in order to help bring scientificvoices and knowledge into the broader global dialogue
on risks.

Scientists warn that humanity has already crossed
several planetary boundaries and our impact
continues to increase at an exponential rate (Steffen etal. 2015). Today, people and societies are far moreinterconnected than at any time in our history. Vast
networks of global trade, transportation, andtelecommunication connect the over seven billion
people on the planet. New technologies, economic
structures, and cultural norms are changing thefundamental way that humans relate to each other andto nature. As we rapidly transform the world we live in,some outcomes are predictable, but many are not.
Understanding and predicting the implications of thesetransformations more effectively will help us movetowards a more secure and sustainable future.

Scientists’ Perceptions of Global
Risks
A clear warning emerged from the Global Risks
Scientists’ Perception survey of global change
scientists: that the climate crisis poses a serious threat
to global security and prosperity. Regardless ofbackground or area of expertise, global change
scientists resoundingly pointed to the failure of climatechange adaptation and mitigation as a central andinterconnected risk facing humanity. Failure toeffectively and adequately address climate change
was seen as the risk most likely to lead to a global
systemic crisis through its interactions with extreme
weather, biodiversity loss, and food crises and water
crises over the coming decade. It was also the mostly
highly cited risk to which we may be “locking-into” overthe next 10 years.

Today, the effects of local disasters can bepropagated much further and faster through hyperconnected social, economic, and technologicalnetworks. Outbreaks of diseases can quickly jumpborders and continents through air travel (e.g. H1N1,
SARS, Ebola, coronavirus), social media can ignite
and unite social movements across disparate
communities (e.g. Arab spring, Fridays4Future), andthe downturn of regional economies can have knockon effects through the global trade system (e.g. USChina trade dispute has reduced global container
shipping and has shifted production to other countries
in southeast Asia). In addition, the impacts of many
disruptions can ripple across multiple systems creatingknock-on effects across social, economic,
environmental, technological and geopoliticaldimensions.

In general, the global change scientific community
perceived these top risks as more likely and more
impactful than members of the business community
surveyed by the World Economic Forum for the samerisks (WEF 2020). While the landscapes of identified
top risks were similar between the two communities,
the business community’s overall perception of thepotential for these risks were consistently lower(Garschagen et al. 2020, in press). This difference isimportant as a significant amount of research has
shown that risk perception is a key determinant ofaction for risk reduction (Renn 2017, Ostrom 1990). If
world leaders and executives do not sense an urgency
around these risks, they are unlikely to take thenecessary steps to address them. Without a sharedsense of urgency across communities, it will continue
to be difficult to mobilize global collective action toeffectively mitigate and adapt to climate change(Garschagen et al. 2020, in press).

The distance and speed at which these impacts of
disruptions and disasters can propagate make it
increasingly difficult to predict and effectively mitigate
such risks. In addition, dynamics in many of oursystems are coupled across large distances (‘teleconnected’) challenging our capacity to link action andoutcome in order to anticipate these risks. Taking acomplex systems approach to understanding how
risks are interconnected is critically important fordeveloping better prediction, protection, andprevention policies (Keys et al. 2019).
The perspectives of science and scientists are criticalto balanced discourse around global risks. Many
global change scientists are trained to understand theworld as a complex system, where outcomes can begreater than the sum of individual events.
Furthermore, many fields of study explicitly look at theprocesses and causes underpinning the onset of
disruptive events and their knock-on effects. Together,
this community can provide vital insights into the majorrisks facing humanity and how they can be managed.

Finally, the global change scientists recognized strong
interconnections and feedbacks between societal andenvironmental risks. Climate change, extreme weather
events and biodiversity loss were strongly linked tofood crisis and water crises, but also to involuntary
migration, social instability, and the failure of national
and/or regional governance. Together these paint a2

picture of how the breakdown of the ecologicalsystems which underpin society could themselves leadto a wider societal crisis. This message reflects thegrowing body of scientific literature and a morewidespread understanding of deep dependence of oursocieties upon a healthy and functioning ecosystem(MEA 2005, IPBES 2019).

1). Of these, extreme weather events stood out as the
top ranked global risk for both likelihood andimpact. This is perhaps not surprising given the highnumber of heatwaves, floods, and droughts which
made headlines across many parts of the world (e.g.
Europe, India and Australia).
The next most highly ranked risks by scientists
were biodiversity loss, water crises, and climatechange. These were followed by food crises, natural
disasters and involuntary migration. The findings
reinforce the importance of both environmental andsocial systems for global security. The likelihood andimpact associated with most geopolitical, technologicaland economic risks were ranked much lower.

Top Global Risks
In the Risks Perceptions Report 2020, environmental
and societal risks emerged as the top risks facing
humanity in the decade to come. Of the 30 global risks
considered, the top eight ranked by scientists were
either categorized as Environmental or Societal risks
and were seen to be Likely with the potential for Major
to Severe impacts across multiple countries (Figure

Figure 1. Mean ranked likelihood and impact of global risks, plus robustness of the knowledge base surrounding eachrisk (size of the circle), for the 30 global risks in 5 categories (risk types). Shorthandle names are used for risks, fullnames are available in Table 1.

3

interconnected risks likely to have synergistic effects:
climate change – extreme weather – biodiversity loss
– food crises – water crises (Figure 2). Together these
five risks underpin the continued integrity of thebiosphere and its capacity to provide the fundamentals
of life to humanity – food and water. Concerningly, fourof these five risks were also among the top ranked
global risks in terms of their individual likelihood andimpact (Box 1).

Box 1. Top-ranked global risks
Top risks by likelihood

Top risks by impact

1. Extreme weather
2. Biodiversity loss
3. Water crises
4. Climate change
5. Urban planning
6. Man-made disasters
7. Involuntary migration
8. Food crises
9. Asset bubbles
10. Illicit trade

1. Extreme weather
2. Climate change
3. Water crises
4. Biodiversity loss
5. Food crises
6. Man-made disasters
7. Urban planning
8. Natural disasters
9. Involuntary migration
10. Interstate conflict

A significant body of science already exists on theinterdependencies between and among these risks.
Climate change has driven and will continue toincrease the frequency and intensity of many extreme
weather events (Perkins et al. 2012, Trenberth et al.
2015, National Academy of Sciences, Engineering,and Medicine 2016). In turn, extreme weather events
can also exacerbate climate change by releasing large
amounts of stored carbon in affected ecosystems backinto the atmosphere (Reichstein et al. 2013),
evidenced by the massive wildfires (which werethemselves aggravated by drought conditions) acrossSiberia, Brazil and Australia in 2019. Changes inclimate patterns and variability in precipitation also
have a strong influence on water availability and foodproduction (Wheeler and van Braun 2013, IPCC
2018). Rainfed agriculture accounts for 60% of global
production and covers 80% of the cultivated area
(Wani et al. 2009). Even slight changes to the timing
and amount of rain can dramatically affect foodproduction, potentially leading to local and/or global
food crises. There is also significant evidence thatbiodiversity will be strongly impacted by climatechange through shifts in species ranges, timing of life
history events, and trophic dynamics (Bellard et al.
2012). At the same time, biodiversity offers importantbuffering to climate extremes in food systems (Isbell et
al. 2015, IPES-Food 2016) and is the key source forthe genetic adaptation of our crops and livestock(Frison et al. 2011, IPES-Food 2016).

In Box 1, the top ten global risks are ranked by mean
perceived likelihood of occurrence and impact in thenext 10 years. There is a significant overlap between
the two lists showing a potentially worrisome
congruence that the most likely risks are also thosewith the greatest perceived impact.

Global Systemic Risks
In general, people tend to take a reductionist approach
to risk mitigation, focusing on major, isolated risks
such as earthquakes or terrorist attacks, and theirprevention. However, the world is highlyinterconnected through flows of people, materials, andinformation that interact across small and vastdistances alike. It is a complex system within which
dynamics are interdependent and difficult to predict. In
such systems, even relatively minor shocks or
disruptions can propagate in unexpected ways andcause cascades of interdependent failures (Helbing2013).
However, when a system is organized as a network of
networks, the interdependencies between different
kinds of systems – e.g. social, economic,
environmental – imply a higher degree of risk
(Buldyrev et al. 2010, Gao et al. 2011). Whencascades flow across networked systems and/or
regions, the result is likely to be a ‘systemic crisis’ – orin some cases even, the meltdown of single systems
or subsystems. In order to design effective risk
mitigation policies that protect societies and the planet
from such global or regional crises, policymakers needto understand which risks are interconnected andwhich sets of risk pose the greatest threats to thestability and security of our planet and society.

Global change scientists also identified a number of
secondary risks associated with the core five:
involuntary migration – social instability – national
governance – regional or global governance – manmade disasters. Together, these highlight thesystematic links between climate, ecosystems andsociety. More importantly, this calls for a paradigm
shift in how we think about risk and emphasizes theneed for scientists and policy makers to explicitly
consider risk as a networked system.
Global conventions on climate change, biodiversity,
wetlands, species, chemicals, and desertification(including their parties and their secretariats) need tocontinue and deepen efforts to actively collaborate toensure that cross-cutting and interacting risks are
considered and addressed as a system (Ivanova andEscobar-Pemberthy 2018).

We asked scientists to identify the set of global risks
that they perceived to have the greatest likelihood tohave interdependent and synergistic effects that could
lead to a global systemic crisis. Across responses
global change scientists identified five central4Figure 2. Climate change – Biodiversity loss – Extreme Weather – Food crisis – Water crisis nexus. A network analysisof potentially synergistic risks that can lead to global systemic crisis. The colour of the node indicates the risk category(green=environmental; pink=societal; orange=geopolitical; yellow=technological; blue=economic). The thickness of theedges represents the frequency of responses identifying a synergistic interconnection between two risks.

Committed Risks

By only evaluating likelihood and impact of a risk over
the timeframe of the next 10 years, risk perception
assessments could overlook risks which we arecommitting to now but whose impact will manifest
multiple decades or centuries from now. We asked
scientists to identify the most important risks which
they believe we are “locking-into” or those risks forwhich we have already crossed the threshold that will
put us on a path towards irreversible or catastrophic
outcomes. Scientists’ free-listed responses
overwhelmingly pointed towards three risks: climatechange, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem collapse.

The likelihood of occurrence around many risks is not
linear. In numerous systems, especially complex
systems, risks can display non-linear dynamics
through space and time. This is because processes
that underpin many risks are often driven by slow
moving variables with internal or external feedbacks
with other systems that can be hard to detect (Walker
et al. 2012). Gradual changes in these processes canremain insignificant or unnoticed over long periods oftime before dramatically shifting once reaching a
critical threshold. At this point, new sets ofrelationships internal to the system or with interacting
systems can lead to a state-change (Garschagen and
Solecki 2017). These are often thought of as tipping
points and it can be hard to predict when or where
they will occur in complex systems (Scheffer 2009,2010). Take for instance widespread social discontent
driven by rising inequality. This frustration can remain
under the surface and grow for many years before
erupting into riots or revolutions, sparked by aseemingly small rise in food or energy prices as seenin Ecuador and Chile in 2019.

These responses are supported by a large body ofresearch collected and analyzed by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
and Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity andEcosystem Services (IPBES). In the IPCC’s Special
Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, scientists statethat humanity has already raised global temperaturesby 1°C above pre-industrial levels, and that these
historic emissions will lead to significant sea level riseand persist for centuries to millennia (IPCC 2018). In

5

addition, based on current emissions trends, we areon track to raise global temperatures above the 2.0°C
Paris target, beyond which there is a high likelihood forpervasive and irreversible impacts for people andecosystems (IPCC 2014). In 2019, IPBES released
the first comprehensive global assessment of
biodiversity and ecosystem services since theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005). In it,
the authors articulate the deep dependence on andinterconnection of humanity with biodiversity andestimate that 25% of assessed plant and animal
species are already threatened. The recent IPBES
report suggests that nearly a million species may faceextinction in the coming decades due to interacting
direct drivers of land use change, exploitation, climatechange, pollution, and invasive species (IPBES 2019).

Deterioration of social infrastructure: The
weakening of services and facilities that help
communities meet their social needs andmaximize their potential for development.
These include education, communication, health, andtransportation systems.
Overpopulation: The potential for the world
population to reach a threshold that exceeds
the planet’s carrying capacity, potentiallyleading to ecological and societal collapse.
Deterioration of mental health: A significant
and widespread decline in mental healthaffecting emotional, psychological, andsocial well-being with impacts on economic,
political, and social spheres.

Emerging Risks

Of these risks the failure to take into accountfeedbacks across systems stands out. This risk is noteasily classified into an existing risk category. Rather,it speaks to the growing awareness among scientists
that the processes underlying risks are interconnected
and complex (Helbing 2013). This is a cross-cutting
concern that is applicable both within and across theexisting risk categories. In our survey, numerous
respondents provided narrative descriptions of how agiven risk could have compounding effects on otherrelated risks. Given that scientists highlighted
systematic links between climate, ecosystems andsociety in their evaluation of interconnected risks, wesuggest that this new risk should also be on the radarof decision-makers and policymakers. Also of note is
the large number of emerging global risks focused onsocietal issues, e.g. erosion of societal trust andcohesion, rising inequality, and rising nationalism; aswell as lesser discussed issues such as deteriorationof mental health. Together these suggest a need for
greater consideration of multiple dimensions ofsocietal well-being in our efforts for our societal
transition towards a safe and equitable future.

As suggested earlier in this chapter, the landscape ofrisks is a dynamic space with some risks diminishingover time while new risks emerge. New social
movements, politics and/or ecological events can bringour attention to emerging risks which should bemonitored as potential threats to the health andstability of human society and the planet. In our
survey, scientists were asked which additional risks,
not covered in the top 30, they think the global
community needs to pay greater attention to.
A qualitative analysis of the 173 responses on thisquestion revealed seven common overarching risks
which scientists suggest are important to consider andwhich were not part of the top 30 in 2019:
Erosion of societal trust, cohesion, andvalues: Growing distrust within and between
groups (including government, business,
public institutions and the public), leading toan increase in social tensions and individualism.
Rising inequality: A major divide in the quality
and quantity of resources available todifferent segments of the population
including, but not limited to, natural resources, income,and healthcare.

Future Directions
Through the Global Risks Perspectives Initiative,
Future Earth aims to open and stimulate dialogue on
our common risks with a growing number ofcommunities. It is only through increased dialogue andsharing that we can accurately assess risks and begin
to chart legitimate and fair future pathways tosustainability that reflect the variety of experiences on
Earth. Results from the first edition of the Global Risks
Scientists’ Perception survey are critical to foster these
dialogues and to start looking at global risks frommultiple perspectives. Through future iterations of thesurvey and other activities, Future Earth seeks toexpand the community perspectives and beginidentifying solutions collectively. Join us.

Failing to take into account feedbacks acrosssystems: In development, planning, andbusiness decisions, failing to take into
account the interconnections between problems,solutions, risks, and opportunities could havesignificant detrimental consequences.
Rise of nationalism: The emergence ofpolitical structures that promote nationalist
ideas of identity and isolation from othercountries and undermine intergovernmental
processes.

6

Table 1. List of 30 global risks and five risk categories used in the Future Earth Global Risks Scientists’
Perception survey. Shorthandle names for each global risk are in bold.

Category

Risk Name

Environmental

Extreme weather events

Failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation
Major biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse
Major natural disasters
Man-made environmental damage or disaster

Failure of urban planning
Societal

Food crises

Large-scale involuntary migration
Profound social instability
Rapid and massive spread of infectious diseases
Water crises

Geopolitical

Failure of national governanceFailure of regional or global governanceInterstate conflict with regional consequences

Large-scale terrorist attacks
State collapse or crisis

Technological

Weapons of mass destruction
Adverse consequences of technological[ies] advances
Breakdown of critical information infrastructure and networks

Large-scale cyber-attacks
Massive incident of data fraud/theft
Asset bubbles in a major economy
Deflation in a major economy

Economic

Failure of a major financial mechanism[s] or institution
Failure/shortfall of critical infrastructure
Fiscal crises in key economies

High structural unemployment or underemployment
Illicit trade

Severe energy price shocks (increase or decrease)
Unmanageable inflation

714. Trenberth, K.E., Fasullo, J.T. and Shepherd,
T.G., 2015. Attribution of climate extreme
events. Nature Climate Change, 5(8), pp.725730.
15. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,and Medicine, 2016. Attribution of Extreme
Weather Events in the Context of Climate
Change. The National Academies Press.
16. Reichstein, M., Bahn, M., Ciais, P., Frank, D.,
Mahecha, M.D., Seneviratne, S.I., Zscheischler,J., Beer, C., Buchmann, N., Frank, D.C. andPapale, D., 2013. Climate extremes and thecarbon cycle. Nature, 500 (7462), pp. 287-295
17. Wheeler, T. and Von Braun, J., 2013. Climatechange impacts on global food security. Science,
341(6145), pp.508-513.
18. 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 toeradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte, P.
Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R.
Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan,
R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y.
Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T.
Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)]
19. Wani, S.P., Rockström, J. and T. Oweis (Eds)2009. Rainfed agriculture: unlocking thepotential. Comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture series 7.
20. Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P.,
Thuiller, W. and Courchamp, F., 2012. Impactsof climate change on the future of
biodiversity. Ecology letters, 15(4), pp.365-377.
21. Isbell, F., Craven, D., Connolly, J., Loreau, M.,
Schmid, B., Beierkuhnlein, C., Bezemer, T.M.,
Bonin, C., Bruelheide, H., De Luca, E. andEbeling, A., 2015. Biodiversity increases theresistance of ecosystem productivity to climate
extremes. Nature, 526(7574), p.574.
20. IPES-Food, 2016. From uniformity to diversity:a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture todiversified agroecological systems. International
Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food systems.
www.ipes-food.org
21. Frison, E.A., Cherfas, J. and Hodgkin, T., 2011.
Agricultural biodiversity is essential for asustainable improvement in food and nutrition
security. Sustainability, 3(1), pp.238-253.
22. Ivanova, M. and N. Escobar-Pemberthy, 2018.
The UN, global governance and the SDGs.
Routledge Handbook of the Resource Nexus,
pg. 486-502
23. Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Rockstrom, J., Crépin,A.S. and Peterson, G., 2012. Drivers," slow"

References
1.

Slovic, P. (Ed.). 2000. The Perception of Risk.
London, England: Earthscan Publications.
2. Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L.,
Gaffney, O. and Ludwig, C., 2015. The
trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great
acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1),pp.81-98.
3. Keys, P.W., Galaz, V., Dyer, M., Matthews, N.,
Folke, C., Nyström, M. and Cornell, S.E., 2019.
Anthropocene risk. Nature Sustainability, 2(8),pp.667-673.
4. World Economic Forum, 2020. Global Risk
Report: 15th Edition.
5. Garschagen, M., Wood, S.L.R., Ivanova, M.,
Garard, J. and A. Luers (2020). Too big to
ignore: Global risk perception gaps between
scientists and business-leaders. Earth’s Future,
In press.
6. Renn, O., 2017. Risk governance: coping withuncertainty in a complex world. Routledge.
7. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the commons:
The evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge university press.
8. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA](2005). Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Our
Human Planet. Island Press.
9. IPBES (2019): Summary for policymakers of the
global assessment report on biodiversity andecosystem services of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity andEcosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S.
Brondízio E.S., H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard,
A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M.
Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii,
J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P.
Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S.
Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R.
Roy Chowdhury, Y. J. Shin, I. J. VisserenHamakers, K. J. Willis, and C. N. Zayas (eds.).
IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 56 pages.
10. Helbing, D., 2013. Globally networked risks andhow to respond. Nature, 497(7447), pp.51-59.
11. Buldyrev, S. V., Parshani, R., Paul, G., Stanley,
H. E. and Havlin, S., 2010. Catastrophic
cascade of failures in interdependent networks.
Nature 464, 1025–1028
12. Gao, J., Buldyrev, S. V., Havlin, S. and Stanley,
H. E., 2011. Robustness of networks of
networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 195701
13. Perkins, S.E., Alexander, L.V. and Nairn, J.R.,
2012. Increasing frequency, intensity andduration of observed global heatwaves andwarm spells. Geophysical Research Letters, 39
(20).

8

variables," fast" variables, shocks, andresilience. Ecology and Society, 17(3).
24. Garschagen, M. and Solecki, W., 2017. Tipping
points in adaptive capacity and adaptation
processes. Journal of Extreme Events, (1).
25. Scheffer, M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W.A.,
Brovkin, V., Carpenter, S.R., Dakos, V., Held,
H., Van Nes, E.H., Rietkerk, M. and Sugihara,G., 2009. Early-warning signals for criticaltransitions. Nature, 461(7260), p.53.
26. Scheffer, M., 2010. Complex systems:
foreseeing tipping points. Nature, 467(7314),
p.411.
27. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(2014). AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change
2014.

Photo Credits
Title Page.
Close up photo of desk globe/Immortal Shots
Page 1.
Yellowstone National Park NPS Photo/ Mike Lewelling
Page 2.
Let us pause for a moment of science - Melbourne MarchforScience on -Earthday(34076636621).jpg/John Englart (Takver)

9