• Energy Research

Over 40% of the earth's land surface are drylands that are home to approximately 2.5 billion people. Livelihood sustainability in drylands is threatened by a complex and interrelated range of social, economic, political, and environmental changes that present significant challenges to researchers, policy makers, and, above all, rural land users. Dynamic ecological and environmental change models suggest that climate change induced drought events may push dryland systems to cross biophysical thresholds, causing a long-term drop in agricultural productivity. Therefore, research is needed to explore how development strategies and other socioeconomic changes help livelihoods become more resilient and robust at a time of growing climatic risk and uncertainty. As a result, the overarching goal of this special feature is to conduct a structured comparison of how livelihood systems in different dryland regions are affected by drought, thereby making methodological, empirical, and theoretical contributions to our understanding of how these types of social-ecological systems may be vulnerable to climate change. In introducing these issues, the purpose of this editorial is to provide an overview of the two main intellectual challenges of this work, namely: (1) how to conceptualize vulnerability to climate change in coupled social-ecological systems; and (2) the methodological challenges of anticipating trends in vulnerability in dynamic environments.

AbstractTwenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.

Monitoring Land Use Land-use decisions are based largely on agricultural market values. However, such decisions can lead to losses of ecosystem services, such as the provision of wildlife habitat or recreational space, the magnitude of which may overwhelm any market agricultural benefits. In a research project forming part of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Bateman et al. (p. 45 ) estimate the value of these net losses. Policies that recognize the diversity and complexity of the natural environment can target changes to different areas so as to radically improve land use in terms of agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions, recreation, and wild species habitat and diversity.

C. Obst et al. provide a welcome opportunity to clarify the difference between environmental-economic cost-benefit analyses (such as ours) and environmental accounting exercises [such as the UN-SEEA ([ 1 ][1], [ 2 ][2]) initiative]. Accounting studies attempt to assess the total value of goods related to ecosystem services in a manner comparable to that used for market-priced goods in national accounts. A decline in the ecosystem services account over time signals a potential need to invest in underlying natural capital. However, such accounts do not indicate the most cost-effective form of that investment. Environmental economic analyses such as ours typically consider changes in value from the status quo that alternative investments provide, and identify those that yield higher value for money. The two approaches are complements rather than substitutes and serve differing but highly compatible elements of the decision-making process. A. Graham et al. criticize our use of “the value of nonmarket goods such as biodiversity.” Although we valued nonmarket greenhouse gas emissions and recreation, we explicitly did not attempt to define biodiversity in terms of economic values; instead, we applied a quantitative constraint prohibiting the degradation of biodiversity within our scenario analyses and examined the costs this would entail, finding them to be minor relative to other values. Graham et al. 's critique that we should not compare nonmarket values for ecosystem services with the market price of agricultural output ignores the fact that, as stated, we are conducting an economic analysis of marginal changes from the status quo and not attempting to assess the total value of food. In such assessments of changes, the use of market prices is standard ([ 3 ][3]). Indeed, there is an argument ([ 3 ][3]) that such analyses should subtract subsidies (including income support), which would reduce agricultural values ([ 4 ][4]). Graham et al. also question the possible increase in yields attributable to climate change. We do believe that UK farming will generally benefit from warmer temperatures but caution that [as detailed in ([ 5 ][5])] within areas of lower rainfall, increased drought could potentially reduce or even reverse these gains. We agree with R. Aspinall and P. Gregory that it would be better to consider net profits rather than farm gate prices, although again this would have reduced estimates of agricultural values. The need to link land use to its ecosystem service impacts favored our use of Agricultural Census ([ 6 ][6]) data, which omits profits. We are currently addressing this through a link to the Farm Business Survey ([ 7 ][7]) database. However, we disagree with the authors' contention that we should have included the added-value of post-farm food processing. Aside from the fact that the UK food processing industry is a major importer of non-UK produce, such an approach would be analogous to valuing timber at the price of fine furniture. It is the raw material value that is relevant here. Similarly, our analysis explicitly links agricultural land use to its impacts on the ecosystem service considered. 1. [↵][8] United Nations, European Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Bank, “System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Central Framework, prepublication (white cover)” (2012); . 2. [↵][9] United Nations, European Commission, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Bank, “System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Experimental Ecosystem Accounting, pre-publication (white cover)” (2013); [http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/eea\_white\_cover.pdf][10]. 3. [↵][11] 1. H. M. Treasury , The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government (The Stationery Office, London, 2003). 4. [↵][12] 1. I. J. Bateman, 2. A. A. Lovett, 3. J. S. Brainard , Applied Environmental Economics: A GIS Approach to Cost-Benefit Analysis (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2003). 5. [↵][13] 1. C. Fezzi 2. et al ., Env. Res. Econ., 10.1007/s10640-013-9663-x (2013). doi:10.1007/s10640-013-9663-x [OpenUrl][14][CrossRef][15] 6. [↵][16] Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, June Agricultural Census (Edina, Manchester, UK, 2010). 7. [↵][17] Rural Business Research, “Farm Business Survey” (2013); [www.fbspartnership.co.uk][18]. [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #ref-4 [5]: #ref-5 [6]: #ref-6 [7]: #ref-7 [8]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [9]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [10]: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/eea_white_cover.pdf [11]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [12]: #xref-ref-4-1 "View reference 4 in text" [13]: #xref-ref-5-1 "View reference 5 in text" [14]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DEnv.%2BRes.%2BEcon.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1007%252Fs10640-013-9663-x%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [15]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10640-013-9663-x&link_type=DOI [16]: #xref-ref-6-1 "View reference 6 in text" [17]: #xref-ref-7-1 "View reference 7 in text" [18]: http://www.fbspartnership.co.uk

AbstractFarmers’ decisions to adopt new technology or measures for agricultural production processes are crucial for adapting to climate change. Meanwhile, risk preference has received great attention over the years in agriculture-related studies as it has been identified as a strong driver for agricultural production decisions. However, empirical studies on the relationship between farmers' risk preferences and adaptation choices in response to climate change remain scant. The present study, utilizing data from a farmer survey in Denmark, aims to examine farmer risk attitude and determine to what extent it influences crop choice decisions, such as crop changes, as an important part of farm level adaptation strategies. Applying a logit regression method, our study finds that: (1) the majority of farmers in the survey were identified as risk tolerant; (2) several demographic and socio-economic factors, such as work experience and farmland tenure were significantly related with farmer risk preference; (3) actual adoption of the majority of farm level adaptation strategies through crop changes and management was found to be significantly less likely for risk averse farmers compared to risk tolerant farmers. Therefore, policy development to promote successful adaptation measures in the agricultural sector should take into account farmers' risk preferences. To this end, risk averse farmers may need better targeting strategies. Future studies could further investigate the role of farmers' risk preferences on the adoption of a wider range of climate change adaptation and mitigation measures and technologies.

This article provides estimates of the physical and economic value of changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions projected to arise from climate change induced shifts in UK agricultural land use during the period 2004–2060. In physical terms, significant regional differences are predicted with the intensity of agricultural GHG emissions increasing in the upland north and western parts of the UK and decreasing in the lowland south and east of the country. Overall these imply relative modest increases in the physical quantity of emissions. However, rapid rises in the expected marginal value of such emissions translate these trends into major increases in their economic costs over the period considered.