14
INTRODUCTION
Current studies provide insights to comprehensively define the planetary boundaries not to
be exceeded to avoid potential disasters in response to any transgression. A typical example
is the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (Rockström et al., 2009; Rockström, 2015).
However, these boundaries are constantly being adjusted through decisions, strategies,
policies, and other action programs by experts to maintain human activity within the
acceptable operating zone (Lewis, 2012). These measures are necessary due to the rapid
growth and the spatial expansion of the human population combined with the intense
development of its activities and the resulting pollution. Many studies show that human use
has reached the critical limit of some planetary components, including biodiversity (Meadows
et al., 1972; Rockström et al., 2009), which could be due to the difficulty of defining the critical
limit accurately.
Furthermore, assessing and managing the human-environment system is challenging (Lenton
et al., 2007; Lewis, 2012; Running, 2012). The definition of planetary boundaries has
frequently relied on quantitative measures and simple logic that compare human needs,
material supply, and potential tipping points that should not be crossed (Lewis, 2012). Indeed,
the planetary boundaries framework links different concepts and models for assessing natural
resource status, its use, and human impact on the environment. These concepts mainly
involve policy targets such as the Sustainable Development Goals, life cycle analysis-based
studies to quantify environmental impacts, and consumption-based indicators such as
terrestrial primary production (plant), ecosystem capacity (carrying capacity) or ecosystem
area and productivity such as footprinting (Running, 2012; Dao, 2015; Dao et al., 2018; Sala et
al., 2020).
The emergence of sustainable development indicators has accompanied the widespread
popularization and acceptance of this concept by many countries, fuelled by the need for
action declared at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, especially after the Agenda 21 was produced
(UNCED, 1992). These indicators describe an accounting system or a complex of indexes to
assess and report environmental and social conditions (Fiksel et al., 2012).
In light of the risks to global ecosystems and societies, several emerging indicators focus on
describing the loss of natural habitats, biodiversity, resources, and resilience (EU, 2021).
Among these are those that describe the ecological balance by comparing a country or
community's natural capital assets, which include all resources consumed and used by
populations, to the country's natural capital. This ecological accounting, which is inspired by
economic models (Pearce et al., 1998), is expressed in terms of green national income (net
national income) or ecological footprint (gross national product) to assess the environmental
performance of a country, region, or system (Atkinson & Dietz, 2019). In addition, Diallo (2021)
argues that incorporating natural capital into the country's socioeconomic asset accounting
enables the estimate of ecosystem service losses, costs associated with these losses, and
expenses that may arise from the restoration of degraded ecosystems and their associated
services. Natural capital is thus a key component of indicators that measure the performance
of countries in their green growth transition, which consists of improving the living conditions
of populations while maintaining the integrity of natural ecosystems (Knight-Lenihan, 2019;
INTRODUCTION
Current studies provide insights to comprehensively define the planetary boundaries not to
be exceeded to avoid potential disasters in response to any transgression. A typical example
is the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (Rockström et al., 2009; Rockström, 2015).
However, these boundaries are constantly being adjusted through decisions, strategies,
policies, and other action programs by experts to maintain human activity within the
acceptable operating zone (Lewis, 2012). These measures are necessary due to the rapid
growth and the spatial expansion of the human population combined with the intense
development of its activities and the resulting pollution. Many studies show that human use
has reached the critical limit of some planetary components, including biodiversity (Meadows
et al., 1972; Rockström et al., 2009), which could be due to the difficulty of defining the critical
limit accurately.
Furthermore, assessing and managing the human-environment system is challenging (Lenton
et al., 2007; Lewis, 2012; Running, 2012). The definition of planetary boundaries has
frequently relied on quantitative measures and simple logic that compare human needs,
material supply, and potential tipping points that should not be crossed (Lewis, 2012). Indeed,
the planetary boundaries framework links different concepts and models for assessing natural
resource status, its use, and human impact on the environment. These concepts mainly
involve policy targets such as the Sustainable Development Goals, life cycle analysis-based
studies to quantify environmental impacts, and consumption-based indicators such as
terrestrial primary production (plant), ecosystem capacity (carrying capacity) or ecosystem
area and productivity such as footprinting (Running, 2012; Dao, 2015; Dao et al., 2018; Sala et
al., 2020).
The emergence of sustainable development indicators has accompanied the widespread
popularization and acceptance of this concept by many countries, fuelled by the need for
action declared at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, especially after the Agenda 21 was produced
(UNCED, 1992). These indicators describe an accounting system or a complex of indexes to
assess and report environmental and social conditions (Fiksel et al., 2012).
In light of the risks to global ecosystems and societies, several emerging indicators focus on
describing the loss of natural habitats, biodiversity, resources, and resilience (EU, 2021).
Among these are those that describe the ecological balance by comparing a country or
community's natural capital assets, which include all resources consumed and used by
populations, to the country's natural capital. This ecological accounting, which is inspired by
economic models (Pearce et al., 1998), is expressed in terms of green national income (net
national income) or ecological footprint (gross national product) to assess the environmental
performance of a country, region, or system (Atkinson & Dietz, 2019). In addition, Diallo (2021)
argues that incorporating natural capital into the country's socioeconomic asset accounting
enables the estimate of ecosystem service losses, costs associated with these losses, and
expenses that may arise from the restoration of degraded ecosystems and their associated
services. Natural capital is thus a key component of indicators that measure the performance
of countries in their green growth transition, which consists of improving the living conditions
of populations while maintaining the integrity of natural ecosystems (Knight-Lenihan, 2019;