• Energy Research

Payments for Environmental Services (PES) constitute an innovative economic intervention to counteract the global loss of biodiversity and ecosystem functions. In theory, some appealing features should enable PES to perform well in achieving conservation and welfare goals. In practice, outcomes depend on the interplay between context, design and implementation. Inspecting a new global dataset, we find that some PES design principles pre-identified in the social-science literature as desirable, such as spatial targeting and payment differentiation, are only partially being applied in practice. More importantly, the PES-defining principle of conditionality-monitoring compliance and sanctioning detected non-compliance-is seldom being implemented. Administrative ease, multiple non-environmental side objectives and social equity concerns may jointly help explain the reluctance to adopt more sophisticated, theoretically informed practices. However, by taking simplifying shortcuts in design and implementation, PES programmes may become less environmentally effective and efficient as economic incentives, thus underperforming their conservation potential.

Environmental and Resource Economics, 51 (1) ISSN:0924-6460 ISSN:1573-1502

Scientists and policy-makers are discussing the concept of nudging as a means to steer individual decisions without changing the choice options available. Studies and pilots in the areas of health prevention, energy saving and finance document positive behavioral changes after implementation of this soft and cost-efficient policy instrument. This article discusses possible fields of application in the domain of agricultural policy, especially in the context of environmental protection measures and the question of how to better support an environmentally friendly agriculture.

Adverse consequences of climate change often affect people and places far away from those that have the greatest capacity for mitigation. Several correlational and some experimental studies suggest that the willingness to take mitigation actions may diminish with increasing distance. However, the empirical findings are ambiguous. In order to investigate if and how socio-spatial distance to climate change effects plays a role for the willingness to engage in mitigation actions, we conducted an online experiment with a German population sample (n = 383). We find that the willingness to sign a petition for climate protection was significantly reduced when a person in India with a name of Indian origin was affected by flooding, as compared to a person in Germany with a name of German origin. Distance did not affect donating money to climate protection or approving of mitigation policies. Our results provide evidence for the existence of a negative effect of distance to climate change consequences on the willingness to engage in low-cost mitigation actions. Investigating explanations for such an effect, we find that it can be attributed to the spatial rather than the social dimension of distance. Moreover, we find some cautious evidence that people with strong racist attitudes react differently to the distance manipulations, suggesting a form of environmental racism that could also reduce mitigation action in the case of climate change.

Replying to G. Wells et al. Nature Sustainability https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0544-3 (2020).

Publiziert als Diskussionsbeiträge der Scientists for Future 5 (43 pp). Die Erstveröffentlichung (nur in Deutsch) erfolgte am 16. Dez. 2020, diese geringfügige Revision 1.1 (Deutsch und Englisch) am 16. Jan. 2021. GERMAN SUMMARY (English Summary further below): Die Zeit drängt. Ohne schnell wirksame Gegenmaßnahmen werden Erderhitzung und Biodiversitätsverlust Ausmaße annehmen, welche die Lebensweise von Menschen nicht abschätzbaren Risiken aussetzen. Obwohl die Herausforderungen weiten Teilen der Bevölkerung bewusst sind, werden dringend nötige Entscheidungen aufgeschoben oder nur teilweise umgesetzt. Eine Ursache hierfür sind fehlende Foren, in denen sich Bürger:innen mit Expert:innen austauschen und gemeinsam mögliche Szenarien und Lösungen erörtern können. Scientists for Future empfiehlt deshalb, mit geeigneten Formen von Bürger:innenversammlungen eine breite und demokratisch partizipative Beteiligung an Zukunftsgestaltung und -sicherung zu ermöglichen. Diese sollten auch unabhängig von einem Auftrag von Regierung oder Parlament initiiert werden. Wir rufen daher zu einem Gründungstreffen auf, um Planung und Durchführung einer Bürger:innenversammlung zum Thema Klima im Jahr 2021 zu ermöglichen. Eine sorgfältige Planung ist nötig, damit die Durchführung neutral und offen geschieht. Hierfür werden einige zentrale Kriterien beschrieben. ENGLISH SUMMARY: Time is pressing. Without quick and effective countermeasures, global warming and loss of biodiversity will assume proportions that expose people’s way of life to incalculable risks. Although large parts of the population are aware of the challenges, urgently needed decisions are postponed or only partially implemented. One reason for this is the lack of forums where citizens can discuss possible scenarios and solutions with experts. Therefore, Scientists for Future recommends enabling a broad and democratic participatory involvement in shaping and securing the future by appropriate forms of citizens’ assemblies. These should also be initiated independently of a mandate from government or parliament. We therefore call for a founding meeting to enable the planning and implementation of a citizens’ assembly on the topic of climate in 2021. A careful planning is necessary, so that the execution happens neutrally and openly. For this purpose, some central criteria are described. ___ Suggested citation: Hagedorn, G.; Baasch, S., Blöbaum, A., Brendel, H., Hardt, J.N., Heiland, S. Klins­mann, M., Matthies, E., Pfennig, A., West, C., Wipfler, B., et al., (2021). Scientists for Future empfiehlt eine reprä­sen­ta­tive Klima-Bürger:innen­ver­sammlung im Jahr 2021 / Scientists for Future recommends a representative Climate Citizens’ Assem­bly in 2021 (Version 1.1, in Deutsch/German & Englisch/English). Diskussionsbeiträge der Scientists for Future, 5, 23 pp. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4417265. Volume 5 of "Diskussionsbeiträge der Scientists for Future". This publication contains both the German original text and an English translation.

Prior evidence suggests that perspective-taking may promote pro-environmental behavior, at least for low-cost behaviors or local environmental problems. Climate change, however, requires costly mitigation efforts and is a global problem. Thus, in this study, we examine whether perspective-taking in the context of climate change is effective in promoting mitigation behaviors, including actual and/or costly behaviors, the mechanisms through which perspective-taking works, and if the distance to the person adversely affected by climate change matters for the effect. We conducted an online experiment with a non-student sample from Germany (n = 557), utilizing a 2 × 2 factorial design, to investigate the impact of perspective-taking and distance on three outcome measures: a climate donation, signing a petition, and approval of mitigation policies. We find that perspective-taking does not promote these mitigation behaviors, yet it raises the degree perspective-takers value and – for close others – feel connected with the affected person. Exploratory analysis shows that dispositional perspective-taking and empathic concern are correlated with mitigation behaviors.