Search

An increasing number of publications focus on social vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation (SVRA) towards natural hazards and climate change. Despite this proliferation of research, a systematic understanding of how these studies are theoretically grounded is lacking. Here, we systematically reviewed 4432 articles that address SVRA in various disciplinary fields (e.g. psychology, sociology, geography, mathematics) for various hazards, including floods, droughts, landslides, storm surges, wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcano eruptions. We focus on the extent to which these studies explicate the frameworks, theoretical constructs or theories they rely on. Surprisingly, we found that about 90% of the reviewed studies do not explicitly refer to a theoretical underpinning. Overall, theories focusing on individuals’ SVRA were more frequently used than those focusing on systems, society, groups, and networks. Moreover, the uptake of theories varied according to the hazard investigated and field of knowledge, being more frequent in wildfire and flood studies and articles published in social science journals. Based on our analysis, we propose a reflexive handling of theories to foster more transparent, comparable, and robust empirical research on SVRA.

Soils provide multiple benefits for human well-being, which are largely invisible to most beneficiaries. Here, we present the results of a discrete choice experiment into the preferences of Germans for soil-based ecosystem services. To tackle complexity and unfamiliarity of soils, we express soil-based ecosystem service attributes relative to the site-specific potential of soils to provide them. We investigate how knowledge about soils, awareness of their contributions to human well-being and experience with droughts and floods affect the preferences. We find substantial yet heterogeneous preferences for soil-based ecosystem services. Only some measures of familiarity exhibit significant effects on preferences.

From a theoretical point of view, result-based agri-environmental payments are clearly preferable to action-based payments. However, they suffer from two major practical disadvantages: costs of measuring the results and payment uncertainty for the participating farmers. In this paper, we propose an alternative design to overcome these two disadvantages by means of modelling (instead of measuring) the results. We describe the concept of model-informed result-based agri-environmental payments (MIRBAP), including a hypothetical example of payments for the protection and enhancement of soil functions. We offer a comprehensive discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of MIRBAP, showing that it not only unites most of the advantages of result-based and action-based schemes, but also adds two new advantages: the potential to address trade-offs among multiple policy objectives and management for long-term environmental effects. We argue that MIRBAP would be a valuable addition to the agri-environmental policy toolbox and a reflection of recent advancements in agri-environmental modelling.

Existence value has been argued to be a significant part of the total economic value of some ecosystems. However, its compatibility with the welfare economic foundations of economic valuation is very limited – it is difficult to logically conceive of changes in existence. Moreover, when applied to biodiversity, the concept of existence value gives rise to an instance of a more fundamental problem of economic valuation, termed here the utilitarian dilemma: it can be argued conceptually that biodiversity cannot have existence value; yet the results of empirical studies suggest that people in stated preference studies can be expected to assign existence value to it. The utilitarian dilemma arises as the analysing economist must deal somehow with ‘erroneous’ preferences. There seems to be no simple solution to the dilemma, but deliberative monetary valuation has the potential to alleviate it.

Biodiversity is an important environmental public good. However, the literature suggests that it is not clear how its economic value should be estimated; there is no established framework for doing this. This paper summarises concepts of biodiversity value from the ecological and economic literatures and combines them to a comprehensive and consistent framework. It is argued that biodiversity is the main carrier of insurance value, option value and spill-over value, and also influences the aesthetic appreciation of ecosystems. On that basis, an extension of the TEV framework is proposed to incorporate biodiversity values better. Furthermore, a number of specific challenges of biodiversity as an economic good are identified and used as criteria to inform the choice of suitable valuation methods.