Anthropocene, Human Ecology and Metrology: challenges for land use planning

Over the course of natural history, the sapiens species has developed the ability to adapt to different environmental, climatic, and physiological conditions (Harari, 2015). Human evolution is marked by numerous events that led it to occupy a significant part of the terrestrial globe (Stephens et al., 2019). The development of agriculture, the maritime-commercial expansion, colonialism, and neocolonialism, reaching even the industrial revolutions are historical marks that permeate this entire occupation process (Ellis, Fuller, et al., 2013). Today, made up of nearly 7 billion individuals, the human population faces great challenges in the context of the Anthropocene (Selcer, 2021).

Although there is not a very precise delimitation of the beginning of the anthropocene period in literature (Kanwar Muhammad Javed & Muhammad Irfan, 2021), the moment when the population starts to grow exponentially (Burdon, 2021) is assumed as a guide. of logistical growth (Brook et al., 2018; Peroni & Hernández, 2011). At this stage of history, the environmental pressures generated by anthropic action have increased in view of the demand for resources to supply the growing population (Matthews, 2021). Additively, territories have undergone significant changes to enable the establishment, growth, and development of communities (Allan et al., 2021).

This set of factors contributed substantially to the establishment of the species (Ellis, 2014a). However, the increase in pollutants in the atmosphere, air and soil, the reduction of natural resources (renewable and non-renewable), deforestation and the occupation of areas unsuitable for housing or production pointed to planetary limits (DeFries et al., 2012; Rockström et al., 2009). The delimitation of the Anthropocene indicates that these agents changed the natural history of the species, establishing a new geological period for planet Earth (Louro et al., 2021; Zalasiewicz et al., 2015).

In this sense, the representative of the challenges of the Anthropocene is resumed (Brondizio et al., 2016). In mid-2010, the terrestrial population reached its inflection point in the logistical growth curve (Steffen et al., 2015), that is, its growth rate reduced, culminating in a slower growth (RICKLEFS & RELYEA, 2016). An ark of scientific and theoretical content was produced in this period, demonstrating that this reduction stands out as an opportunity for change (Brondizio et al., 2016; DeFries et al., 2012; Ellis, 2014b; Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015), which considers the Sustainable Development Goals (Nations, 2015) as guidelines.

Thus, government entities, research and development institutes, non-governmental organizations and civil society began to dedicate themselves and to require technologies, normative and regulatory guidelines and conditions that would enable the achievement of a healthy future for present and future generations (Dagnachew et al., 2021; Hiraldo & Tanner, 2011; IPCC, 2018), guaranteeing essential rights to populations (Brasil, 1988). To this end, numerous proposals were (and still are) discussed globally to create the necessary conditions for the maintenance of humanity on the planet (Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen & Morgan, 2021; Steffen et al., 2015).

Entering this context, we come across the central point of this work, the territorial planning (Amici, 2011; Burkhard et al., 2012; De Keersmaeker et al., 2014; Zheng et al., 2014). As previously mentioned, the occupation of areas was one of the landmarks in history and it was responsible for significant changes in the territory (Ellis, Kaplan, et al., 2013; He et al., 2015; Wei et al., 2021) . Currently, territorial planning is seen as a key to change for optimizing the use and occupation of terrestrial spaces (Bakker et al., 2021; Dorninger et al., 2021; O'Connor et al., 2021), as well as for recover degraded areas that are more impacted by human action (Pressey et al., 2021; Ward et al., 2021).

Through robust land use planning, it is possible to establish public measures that address the processes of environmental preservation and conservation (Loiseau et al., 2021; van Wilgen, 2021). It is also feasible to predict areas that are more suitable for human occupation, agricultural production, and the construction of allotment areas (Chetcuti et al., 2021; Dorninger et al., 2021; van Noordwijk, 2021). It is pointed out that this still provides opportunities for the composition of ecological zoning areas, both for the mitigation of environmental impacts on the natural environment and on the human community (Ellis et al., 2019; Fa et al., 2020; van Noordwijk, 2021), and as ecological corridors for wildlife maintenance and preservation of native species (Honorio Coronado, 2021; Mbaru et al., 2021; Rahman et al., 2017).

According to these words, it is noted that the composition of a territorial planning project must permeate different areas of knowledge, to give strength to its technical-scientific structure (Ellis et al., 2018; Randin et al., 2020). Evidently, aggregating environmental and anthropogenic data in this system is of paramount importance and a model that assimilates such geospatial information helps to broadly recognize the environment (Bagstad et al., 2013; Mas et al., 2012), enabling the proposition of projects of land use planning (Chandler & Pugh, 2021; Grove, 2021; Leimgruber & Songer, 2021; Wakefield, 2021).

It is in this context that the anthromes model is assumed (Ellis, 2020). Structured by Ellis & Ramankutty in 2008(Ellis & Ramankutty, 2008), anthromes are presented as subdivisions of terrestrial biomes, based on data on population density and land use and cover. This territorial arrangement enables the recognition of characteristics that shape terrestrial spaces (Riggio et al., 2020). Through this modeling, it is possible to identify areas that demand public attention (Locke et al., 2019) and others that can be used for other purposes, for which their use has not yet been established (Oberlack et al., 2019).

Although the tool is already integrated into Google Earth (Google LCC.), anthropogenic biomes are not yet used as a resource for territorial planning in the national territory (Gobbo, 2020). This is due to the limitation in viewing through the Earth platform. In research carried out in 2020, it was found that the antromas classified in the Brazilian soil did not allow the identification of important natural areas, nor the identification of native areas, pastures, plantations, among others (Gobbo, 2020).

One of the factors pointed out as limiting this view is the data source used by the authors in structuring the mapping of global anthromes (Alessa & Chapin, 2008; Ellis, 2011). According to the literature, the source data for correlation analysis, and subsequent application in mapping software, come from global geographic information bases (DeFries et al., 2012; Martin et al., 2014). Although very robust and complex, the data presented on these platforms cover large areas, distorting information into smaller areas, which leads to limited visualization (Morrison et al., 2021; Parreira et al., 2019). On the other hand, there are indications that regional databases provide geographic information closer to the local reality (Arlé et al., 2021; Minx et al., 2021), assimilating important natural features and areas already identified as areas of preservation, conservation and/or ecological zoning (Goldbergs et al., 2018; Lark et al., 2017; Magliocca & Ellis, 2013).

Thus, in 2020, the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (INDE) was proposed as a source for the input data in the correlation analysis, for further mapping of Brazilian anthromes (Gobbo, 2020). Following a structure of critical analysis of results and methods, which was based on ISO/IEC 17025 (ISO, 2017), the quality of geospatial data indexed on the national platform was evaluated. The results pointed to the quality of geographic information present in the INDE, reducing the coverage area of the geospatial data and assimilating the natural features previously treated (Gobbo, 2020).

In this sense, it was noted that the correlation between Metrology and Human Ecology added value to the analyzed data. In addition, it expanded the recognition of relevant characteristics that affect mapping at a regional scale, especially about the methods used in the production of these data and the results themselves (Mahmoud et al., 2021; Mittaz et al., 2019; Sené et al., 2019; Sené et al., 2019; al., 2017). Aiming to give shape and further support this connection between the two sciences, the present work takes as its central objective the regionalization of antromas for application in territorial planning, supported by metrological tools. When considering Metrology in the structuring of Brazilian anthropogenic biomes, it assumes the character of guaranteeing the quality of geographic information, pointing out indicators that will give producers and users of geospatial data and mapping. Furthermore, with this combination of sciences, it is intended to demonstrate how one can contribute to the other, to establish more robust spatial planning tools that are contextualized in the local reality.

• ALESSA, L.; CHAPIN, F. S. Anthropogenic biomes: a key contribution to earth-system science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, v. 23, n. 10, p. 529-531, 2008. ISSN 0169-5347. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.07.002.

• ALLAN, J. D.; CASTILLO, M. M.; CAPPS, K. A. Rivers in the Anthropocene. In: ALLAN, J. D.; CASTILLO, M. M., et al (Ed.). Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. Cham: Springer International Publishing, p. 1-17, 2021. ISBN 978-3-030-61286-3. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61286-3_1.

• AMICI, V. Dealing with vagueness in complex forest landscapes: a soft classification approach through a niche-based distribution model. Ecological Informatics, v. 6, n. 6, p. 371-383, 2011. ISSN 1574-9541. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2011.07.001.

• ARLÉ, E. et al. bRacatus: a method to estimate the accuracy and biogeographical status of georeferenced biological data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2021. ISSN 2041-210X. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13629.

• BAGSTAD, K. J. et al. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosystem Services, v. 5, p. 27-39, 2013. ISSN 2212-0416. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.004.

• BAKKER, V.; VERBURG, P. H.; VLIET, J. van. Trade-offs between prosperity and urban land per capita in major world cities. Geography and Sustainability, 2021. ISSN 2666-6839. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2021.05.004.

• BRASIL. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Planalto Central, Brasília 1988. Disponível em http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm.

• BRONDIZIO, E. S. et al. Re-conceptualizing the Anthropocene: A call for collaboration. Global Environmental Change, v. 39, p. 318-327, 2016. ISSN 0959-3780. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.02.006.

• BROOK, B. W.; ELLIS, E. C.; BUETTEL, J. C. What is the evidence for planetary tipping points? In: KAREIVA, P.; MARVIER, M., et al (Ed.). Effective Conservation Science: Data Not Dogma. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, p.51-57, 2018. ISBN 9780198808978. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198808978.003.0008.

• BURDON, F. J. Understanding the connectivity of ecosystems in the Anthropocene. The Journal of animal ecology, v. 90, n. 7, p. 1600-1604, 2021. ISSN 0021-8790. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13550.

• BURKHARD, B. et al. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological indicators, v. 21, p. 17-29, 2012. ISSN 1470-160X. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019.

• CHANDLER, D.; PUGH, J. The Anthropocene Islands agenda. Dialogues in Human Geography, 2021. ISSN 2043-8206. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/20438206211017457.

• CHETCUTI, J.; KUNIN, W. E.; BULLOCK, J. M. Matrix composition mediates effects of habitat fragmentation: a modelling study. Landscape Ecology, p. 1-16, 2021. ISSN 1572-9761. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01243-5.

• DAGNACHEW, A. et al. Climate Change Measures and Sustainable Development Goals: mapping synergies and trade-offs to guide multi-level decision-making. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. The Hague, p.1-55. 2021. Disponível em: https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/climate-change-measures-and-sustainable-development-goals.

• DEFRIES, R. S. et al. Planetary opportunities: a social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. BioScience, v. 62, n. 6, p. 603-606, 2012. ISSN 1525-3244. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.6.11.

• DORNINGER, C. et al. The effect of industrialization and globalization on domestic land-use: A global resource footprint perspective. Global Environmental Change, v. 69, 2021. ISSN 0959-3780. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102311.

• ELLIS, E. C. et al. Dating the Anthropocene: Towards an empirical global history of human transformation of the terrestrial biosphere. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, v. 1, 2013. Doi: https://doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000018

• ELLIS, E. C. et al. Evolving the Anthropocene: linking multi-level selection with long-term social–ecological change. Sustainability Science, v. 13, n. 1, p. 119-128, 2018. ISSN 1862-4057. Doi https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0513-6.

• ELLIS, E. C. et al. Used planet: A global history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 110, n. 20, p. 7978-7985, 2013. ISSN 0027-8424. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217241110.

• ELLIS, E. C. A taxonomy of the human biosphere. In: REED, C. & LISTER, N-M (Eds.); Projective Ecologies. Actar. Harvard, p. 168-182, 2014. Disponível em https://issuu.com/actar/docs/projectiveecologies.

• ELLIS, E. C. Anthromes. In: GOLDSTEIN, M. I. e DELLASALA, D. A. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of the World's Biomes. Oxford: Elsevier, 2020. p.5-11. ISBN 978-0-12-816097-8. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.12494-7.

• ELLIS, E. C. Anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, v. 369, n. 1938, p. 1010-1035, 2011. ISSN 1364-503X. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0331.

• ELLIS, E. C. Ecologies of the Anthropocene. Global Upscaling of Social-Ecological Infrastructures. New Geographies, v. 6, p. 20-27, 2014. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2427.4729.

• ELLIS, E. C.; PASCUAL, U.; MERTZ, O. Ecosystem services and nature’s contribution to people: negotiating diverse values and trade-offs in land systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, v. 38, p. 86-94, 2019. ISSN 1877-3435. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.05.001.

• ELLIS, E. C.; RAMANKUTTY, N. Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, v. 6, n. 8, p. 439-447, 2008. ISSN 1540-9309. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1890/070062.

• FA, J. E. et al. Importance of Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, v. 18, n. 3, p. 135-140, 2020. ISSN 1540-9295. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2148.

• GOBBO, M. S. L. A. Regionalization of Brazilian Anthromes: metrological tools for quality assurance of demographic results and land use and coverage. 191p. Postgraduate Program in Metrology and Quality, National Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology, Duque de Caxias, RJ, 2020.

• GOLDBERGS, G. et al. Hierarchical integration of individual tree and area-based approaches for savanna biomass uncertainty estimation from airborne LiDAR. Remote sensing of environment, v. 205, p. 141-150, 2018. ISSN 0034-4257. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.010.

• GROVE, K. Islands of (in)security in the Anthropocene. Dialogues in Human Geography, 2021. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F20438206211017454.

• HARARI, Y. N. Sapiens: uma breve história da humanidade. L&PM, 2015. ISBN 8525432407.

• HE, F.; LI, S.; ZHANG, X. A spatially explicit reconstruction of forest cover in China over 1700–2000. Global and Planetary Change, v. 131, p. 73-81, 2015. ISSN 0921-8181. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2015.05.008.

• HIRALDO, R.; TANNER, T. The Global Political Economy of REDD+ Engaging Social Dimensions in the Emerging Green Economy. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva, n. 4, 26p., 2011. ISBN 978-92-9085-084-7. Disponível em: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/148787.

• HONORIO CORONADO, E. N. et al. Intensive field sampling increases the known extent of carbon-rich Amazonian peatland pole forests. Environmental Research Letters, v. 16, n. 7, 2021. ISSN 1748-9326. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac0e65.

• INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC). Summary for Policymakers. In: MASSON-DELMOTTE, V.; ZHAI, P., et al (Ed.). 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 to eradicate poverty. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization, p.1-32, 2018. Disponível em: https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sr15/sr15_spm_final.pdf

• INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION (ISO). ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. ISO/CASCO Committee on conformity assessment: ISO/IEC: 30 p. 2017. https://www.iso.org/standard/66912.html.

• IQBAL, K. M. J. & KHAN, M. I. Critical Perspective on Demarking Anthropocene Epoch. PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt / Egyptology, v. 18, n. 4, p. 7845-7853, 2021. Disponível em: https://www.archives.palarch.nl/index.php/jae/article/view/8482.

• KEERSMAEKER, L. de et al. A spatially explicit empirical model on actual and potential ancient forest plant diversity in a fragmented landscape. Landscape and urban planning, v. 130, p. 149-158, 2014. ISSN 0169-2046. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.07.006.

• LARK, T. J. et al. Measuring land-use and land-cover change using the US department of agriculture’s cropland data layer: Cautions and recommendations. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, v. 62, p. 224-235, 2017. ISSN 0303-2434. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2017.06.007.

• LEIMGRUBER, P.; SONGER, M. A. Conservation: Where can elephants roam in the Anthropocene? Current Biology, v. 31, n. 11, 2021. ISSN 0960-9822. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.04.037.

• LOCKE, H. et al. Three global conditions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: an implementation framework. National Science Review, v. 6, n. 6, p. 1080-1082, 2019. ISSN 2095-5138. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwz136.

• LOISEAU, N. et al. Maximizing regional biodiversity requires a mosaic of protection levels. PLOS Biology, v. 19, n. 5, p. e3001195, 2021. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001195.

• LOURO, I. et al. A Sonic Anthropocene: sound practices in a changing environment. Cadernos de Arte e Antropologia, v. 10, n. 1, p. 3-17, 2021. Doi: https://doi.org/10.4000/cadernosaa.3377.

• MAGLIOCCA, N. R.; ELLIS, E. C. Using Pattern‐oriented Modeling (POM) to Cope with Uncertainty in Multi‐scale Agent‐based Models of Land Change. Transactions in GIS, v. 17, n. 6, p. 883-900, 2013. ISSN 1361-1682. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12012.

• MAHMOUD, G. M. et al. Proposed approach for force transducers classification. International Journal of Metrology and Quality Engineering, v. 12, p. 3, 2021. ISSN 2107-6847. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1051/ijmqe/2021001.

• MARTIN, L. J. et al. Conservation opportunities across the world's anthromes. Diversity and Distributions, v. 20, n. 7, p. 745-755, 2014. ISSN 1366-9516. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12220.

• MAS, J.-F.; PÉREZ-VEGA, A.; CLARKE, K. C. Assessing simulated land use/cover maps using similarity and fragmentation indices. Ecological Complexity, v. 11, p. 38-45, 2012. ISSN 1476-945X. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2012.01.004.

• MATTHEWS, D. Reframing sovereignty for the Anthropocene. Transnational Legal Theory, p. 1-34, 2021. ISSN 2041-4005. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2021.1929022.

• MBARU, E. K. et al. Evaluating outcomes of conservation with multidimensional indicators of well‐being. Society for Conservation Biology, 2021. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13743.

• MINX, J. C. et al. A comprehensive dataset for global, regional and national greenhouse gas emissions by sector 1970–2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., v. 2021, p. 1-63, 2021. ISSN 1866-3591. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5053056.

• MITTAZ, J.; MERCHANT, C. J.; WOOLLIAMS, E. R. Applying principles of metrology to historical Earth observations from satellites. Metrologia, v. 56, n. 3, 2019. ISSN 0026-13941681-7575. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1681-7575/ab1705.

• MORRISON, K. D. et al. Mapping past human land use using archaeological data: a new classification for global land use synthesis and data harmonization. PLOS ONE, v. 16, n. 4, 2021. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246662.

• NOORDWIJK, M. van. Agroforestry-Based Ecosystem Services: Reconciling Values of Humans and Nature in Sustainable Development. Land, v. 10, n. 7, 2021. ISSN 2073-445X. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/land10070699.

• O’CONNOR, L. M. J. et al. Balancing conservation priorities for nature and for people in Europe. Science, v. 372, n. 6544, p. 856, 2021. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc4896.

• OBERLACK, C. et al. Archetype analysis in sustainability research: meanings, motivations, and evidence-based policy making. Ecology and Society, v. 24, n. 2, 2019. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10747-240226.

• PARREIRA, M. R. et al. Disentangling uncertainties from niche modeling in freshwater ecosystems. Ecological Modelling, v. 391, p. 1-8, 2019. ISSN 0304-3800. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.10.024.

• PERONI, N.; HERNÁNDEZ, M. I. M. Ecologia de populações e comunidades. Universidade Aberta do Brasil, 2011. ISBN 978-85-6148-39-9. Disponível em: http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/121.

• PRESSEY, R. L. et al. The mismeasure of conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2021. ISSN 0169-5347. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.06.008.

• RAHMAN, S. A. et al. Finding alternatives to swidden agriculture: does agroforestry improve livelihood options and reduce pressure on existing forest? Agroforestry Systems, v. 91, n. 1, p. 185-199, 2017. ISSN 0167-4366. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/S10457-016-9912-4.

• RANDIN, C. F. et al. Monitoring biodiversity in the Anthropocene using remote sensing in species distribution models. Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 239, p. 111626, 2020/03/15/ 2020. ISSN 0034-4257. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111626.

• RICKLEFS, R. E.; RELYEA, R. Economia da Natureza. Guanabara Koogan, Ed. 7, 636p., 2016.

• RIGGIO, J. et al. Global human influence maps reveal clear opportunities in conserving Earth’s remaining intact terrestrial ecosystems. Global Change Biology, v. 26, n. 8, p. 4344-4356, 2020. ISSN 1354-1013. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15109.

• ROCKSTRÖM, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, v. 461, n. 7263, p. 472-475, 2009. ISSN 1476-4687. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a.

• SELCER, N. P. Anthropocene. Encyclopedia of the History of Science, p. 1-33, 2021. Doi: https://doi.org/10.34758/be6m-gs41

• SENÉ, M.; GILMORE, I.; JANSSEN, J.-T. Metrology is key to reproducing results. Nature News, v. 547, n. 7664, p. 397-399, 2017. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/547397a.

• STEFFEN, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, v. 347, n. 6223, 2015. ISSN 0036-8075. Doi: 10.1126/science.1259855.

• STEFFEN, W.; MORGAN, J. From the Paris Agreement to the Anthropocene and Planetary Boundaries Framework: an interview with Will Steffen. Globalizations, p. 1-13, 2021. ISSN 1474-7731. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2021.1940070.

• STEPHENS, L. et al. Archaeological assessment reveals Earth’s early transformation through land use. Science, v. 365, n. 6456, p. 897, 2019. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax1192

• UNITED NATIONS. Global Sustainable Development Report. USG for Economic and Social Affairs: Bullfrog Powered. Ed. 1, 202 p., 2015. Disponível em: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1758GSDR%202015%20Advance%20Unedited%20Version.pdf.

• WAKEFIELD, S. The possibility of islands in the Anthropocene. Dialogues in Human Geography, 2021. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F20438206211017455.

• WARD, M. et al. A national-scale dataset for threats impacting Australia’s imperiled flora and fauna. Ecology and Evolution, p. 1-13, 2021. ISSN 2045-7758. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7920.

• WEI, X. et al. Dataset of 1 km cropland cover from 1690 to 1999 in Scandinavia. Earth System Science Data, v. 13, n. 6, p. 3035-3056, 2021. ISSN 1866-3508. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3035-2021.

• WILGEN, B. W. van. Confronting complexity in forest management. South African Journal of Science, v. 117, n. 7/8, 2021. ISSN 1996-7489. Doi: https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2021/9345.

• ZALASIEWICZ, J. et al. When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is stratigraphically optimal. Quaternary International, v. 383, p. 196-203, 2015. ISSN 1040-6182. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.11.045.

• ZHENG, B.; MYINT, S. W.; FAN, C. Spatial configuration of anthropogenic land cover impacts on urban warming. Landscape and Urban Planning, v. 130, p. 104-111, 2014. ISSN 0169-2046. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.07.001.