Environmental economic ethics refers to the moral philosophy underlying the interaction between economic processes and the natural environment. The ethical foundations shaping the way the economy interacts with nature vary greatly, depending on culture and the historical period. Nonetheless, current economic thinking and practice is dominated by utilitarianism, a philosophical stream consolidated in Western culture in the late 18th century. A utilitarian way to conceive and deal with the natural world and other humans can be identified as the ultimate cause of the current global environmental crisis. Even though ecological economics, as a field, has tried to overcome some of the drawbacks of utilitarianism when applied to the study of sustainability problems from an economic perspective, this school of thought remains essentially within the utilitarian paradigm. However, recent changes in social values, moving away from utilitarianism, are creating new opportunities for changing the philosophical and ethical foundations of ecological economics thinking and practice. The global movement for the rights of nature is an example of such a societal shift. An overhaul of the current allocation of rights can be a first step toward less suffering among humans, as well as a more peaceful relationship between humans and the natural environment. The economic implications of adopting the rights of nature paradigm are vast and wide. They include the thriving of new forms of property rights, new ways of allocating responsibilities and liabilities among social groups, and the acknowledgement of the territory as a key dimension for caring about in human economic development.
1-10 of 342 Results
Article
Environmental Economic Ethics
Roldan Muradian
Article
An Innovative Approach to Hybridizing Two Established Desalination Technologies or Toward Ensuring a Future Global Water Supply: Using a Hybrid Multieffect Desalination with an Adsorption Cycle
Muhammad Wakil Shahzad and Muhammad Ahmad
The global water supply–demand gap is rising with population growth, urbanization trends, and industrialization. This situation is expected to push 40% of the world’s population below the water scarcity level by 2050. As of 2023, 20,000 desalination plants converting more than 40 bm3 of water annually in 150 countries. However, the energy-intensive operation, high desalination cost, and environmental footprint of conventional desalination systems require a technological breakthrough in the field to sustainably cope with the demand. This study presents a comprehensive and innovative approach to hybridizing two established desalination technologies for higher energy efficiency, higher water productivity, lower cost, and improved environmental operation. The proposed system is a hybrid multieffect desalination (MED) with an adsorption cycle (ad). The advantages of the proposed system include low-temperature operation (below ambient), double water production over the same top brine temperature, and high thermodynamic efficiency. A pilot-scale MEDAD with a water production capacity of 10 m3/day has been developed and tested. The study showed that the hybridization of the AD cycle with the conventional MED system decreased the bottom brine temperature to approximately 20 °C compared to 40 °C of the conventional MED system. Meanwhile, the productivity of hybrid systems surged to 2–3 times that of the conventional system. Moreover, the system operates at approximately 20% of the thermodynamic limit, which is the highest for any desalination system hitherto. Therefore, the system can be scaled up for any higher productivity as the most viable solution to desalinate seawater.
Article
The Family of HYDRUS Models
Jiří Šimůnek, Giuseppe Brunetti, Martinus Th. van Genuchten, and Miroslav Šejna
HYDRUS is a Windows-based modeling software package that can be used to analyze water flow and heat and solute transport in variably saturated porous media (e.g., soils or the vadose zone). The HYDRUS software includes an interactive graphics-based interface for data preprocessing, soil profile discretization, and graphic presentation of the results. Historically, HYDRUS consisted of two independent software packages. While HYDRUS-1D simulated flow and transport processes in one dimension and was a public domain software, HYDRUS (2D/3D; and earlier HYDRUS-2D) extended the simulation capabilities to the second and third dimensions and was distributed commercially. These two previously independent software packages were merged in 2023 into a single software package called HYDRUS.
The capabilities of the HYDRUS software packages have been significantly expanded by various standard and nonstandard specialized add-on modules. The standard add-on modules are fully incorporated and supported by the HYDRUS graphical user-friendly interfaces (GUIs) and documented in detail in the technical and user manuals. This is not the case for several additional nonstandard modules, which require additional work outside the GUI. A commonality of all HYDRUS add-on modules is that they simulate variably saturated water flow and heat and solute transport in porous media. The specialized add-on modules provide additional capabilities, such as considering general reactive transport (in the HPx models) or reactive transport with specific chemistry (notably the Wetland and UNSATCHEM modules). Other modules provide additional flow and/or transport modeling processes, such as to account for preferential flow (the DualPerm module), colloid-facilitated solute transport (the C-Ride module), or the transport of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS; the PFAS module) or fumigant (the Fumigant module) compounds.
The HYDRUS models are among the most widely used numerical models for simulating processes in the subsurface. There are many thousands of HYDRUS users worldwide, with many applications (also several thousand) appearing in peer-reviewed international literature and many technical reports.
Article
Moving to General Equilibrium: The Role of CGEs for Economic Analysis of Water Infrastructure Projects
Kenneth M. Strzepek and James E. Neumann
The desire of policymakers and public finance institutions to understand the contribution of water infrastructure to the wider economy, rather than the value of project-level outputs in isolation, has spawned a multidisciplinary branch of water resource planning that integrates traditional biophysical modeling of water resource systems with economy-wide models, including computable general equilibrium models. Economy-wide models include several distinct approaches, including input–output models, macro-econometric models, hybrid input–output macro-econometric models, and general equilibrium models—the term “economy-wide” usually refers to a national level analysis, but could also apply to a sub-national region, multi-nation regions, or the world. A key common characteristic of these models is that they disaggregate the overall economy of a country or region into a number of smaller units, or optimizing agents, who in turn interact with other agents in the economy in determining the use of inputs for production, and the outcomes of markets for goods. These economic agents include industries, service providers, households, governments, and many more. Such a holistic general equilibrium modeling approach is particularly useful for understanding and measuring social costs, a key aim in most cost–benefit analyses (CBAs) of water infrastructure investments when the project or program will have non-marginal impacts and current market prices will be impacted and an appropriately detailed social accounting matrix is available. This article draws on examples from recent work on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and provides an outline of available resources that are necessary to conduct an economy-wide modeling analysis. LMICs are the focus of larger water resource investment potential in the 21st century, including large-scale hydropower, irrigation, and drinking water supply. A step-by-step approach is illustrated and supports the conclusion that conditions exist to apply these models much more broadly in LMICs to enhance CBAs.
Article
Water Governance in the Netherlands
M.L. (Marie Louise) Blankesteijn and W.D. (Wieke) Pot
Dutch water governance is world famous. It to a large extent determines the global public image of the Netherlands, with its windmills, polders, dikes and dams, and the eternal fight against the water, symbolized by the engineering marvel of the Delta Works. Dutch water governance has a history that dates back to the 11th century. Since the last 200 years, water governance has, however, undergone significant changes. Important historical events setting in motion longer-term developments for Dutch water governance were the Napoleonic rule, land reclamation projects, the Big Flood of 1953, the Afsluitdijk, the impoldering of the former Southern Sea, the ecological turn in water management, and the more integrated approach of “living with water.” In the current anthropocentric age, climate change presents a key challenge for Dutch water governance, as a country that for a large part is situated below sea level and is prone to flooding.
The existing Dutch water governance system is multilevel, publicly financed, and, compared to many other countries, still relatively decentralized. The responsibilities for water management are shared among the national government and Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, provinces, regional water authorities, and municipalities. Besides these governmental layers, the Delta Commissioner is specifically designed to stimulate a forward-looking view when it comes to water management and climate change. With the Delta Commissioner and Delta Program, the Netherlands aims to become a climate-resilient and water-robust country in 2050.
Robustness, adaptation, coordination, integration, and democratization are key ingredients of a future-proof water governance arrangement that can support a climate-resilient Dutch delta. In recent years, the Netherlands already has been confronted with many climate extremes and will need to transform its water management system to better cope with floods but even more so to deal with droughts and sea-levels rising. The latest reports of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change show that more adaptive measures are needed. Such measures also require a stronger coordination between governmental levels, sectors, policies, and infrastructure investments. Furthermore, preparing for the future also requires engagement and integration with other challenges, such as the energy transition, nature conservation, and circular economy. To contribute to sustainability goals related to the energy transition and circular economy, barriers for technical innovation and changes to institutionalized responsibilities will need to be further analyzed and lifted.
To govern for the longer term, current democratic institutions may not always be up to the task. Experiments with deliberative forms of democracy and novel ideas to safeguard the interests of future generations are to be further tested and researched to discover their potential for securing a more long-term oriented and integrated approach in water governance.
Article
Puzzles of Commitment, Compliance, and Defection in Water Resource Management
John Waterbury
Collective action problems (CAPs) are ubiquitous in human undertakings including in the development and management of shared water resources. Various rational-actor models have been applied to understand their dynamics. These analyses tend to come to pessimistic conclusions based on the assumption of “free-riding” whereby any participant in a collective action (CA) will be motivated to benefit from the action without contributing to its costs. If all participants follow this logic, there will be no CA and hence no net benefit to the participants.
This view assumes the logic of individual rationality. It does not adequately account for observed behavior, which may be driven by collective or group rationality. CA in water management and other domains has been initiated and sustained despite the temptation of free-riding. To understand why, it is necessary to analyze the dynamics of commitment, i.e., the initial collective undertaking; compliance, i.e., sustaining the initial commitment; and defection, when compliance breaks down. None of these variables is static. With respect to water, the technological means of its management constantly change so that the dynamics of compliance change as well. Technological change must be anticipated in the commitment phase. Just as important, cost/benefit analysis must encompass assessing payoffs in domains not related to water itself. These payoffs may not be part of the formal terms of commitment but must inform the compliance process. When the process unravels, “water wars” may result although that has been a rare outcome.
Article
Field-Level Irrigation
Kiril Manevski and Mathias Neumann Andersen
Field irrigation is the largest consumer of freshwater in the world covering 63 million hectares in the 1900s to 300 million hectares in the early 2000s to provide a multitude of benefits and ecosystem services to people around the globe, such as consistent food supply, higher crop productivity, and shared resource collectivism. Field irrigation intensifies land use mostly in the arid and the semiarid regions where precipitation cannot fully satisfy human and crop water demands. Climate change impacts the distribution and the timing of water availability into humid regions as well through increases in drought frequency and intensity, further augmenting the demand for irrigation. However, designing and operating irrigation infrastructure and scheduling practices for an agricultural region requires sound contemporary and historical knowledge of the local circumstances vis-à-vis humans, crops, soils, hydrology, and climate. Sub-Saharan Africa stands as a large-scale narrative of poorly performing field irrigation against decades of investments due to designs exclusive to the socioeconomic ecosystems. Optimal water allocation in the water–energy–environment–food nexus to achieve the greatest social and economic benefit for the region invariably a task of continuous cocreation between many actors. Therefore, field irrigation remains a challenging project and most of the agricultural water use worldwide—both from groundwater and surface water—remains suboptimal in terms of design, water allocation, and monitoring for farmers, communities, and regulators. Many diversions of surface water for irrigation in both economically developed and developing countries are small-scale temporary infrastructures in and outside official plans and permits, which altogether results in severe aquifer depletion worldwide with negative impacts on food safety, economy, environment, and society.
Traditional surface flooding is the dominant mode of irrigation globally and mostly applied on new agricultural fields, whereas water-saving irrigation methods are practiced on fewer and older fields. Water-saving technologies involve either scheduling of regulated deficit irrigation or local water storage to optimize crop water supply, which may be combined with drip irrigation, biodegradable soil amendments to retain soil water, and plastic mulches to minimize evaporation, whereas the use of partial root zone drying and biochar mostly remain at the experimental stage. Global analyses over the late 20th and early 21st century find no water saving by water-saving technologies at field scale because increased return flow from newly irrigated fields surpasses the reduced soil evaporation from old, irrigated fields, whereas regionally, return flow to fresh aquifers is a benefit rather than a loss, which results in some water savings. At the same time, increased crop transpiration exceeds regional water savings, which explains the paradox between the wide application of water-saving technologies and more severe regional water shortage.
With nonscientific decisions on when and where to irrigate practiced by most farmers worldwide, scheduling remains the top priority task in field irrigation, as both too little and too much water leads to yield decreases and loss of nutrients to the environment. Where water is abundant, scheduling aims to keep crop transpiration and yield at a maximum with minimum use of irrigation water. In dryer areas, this luxury can rarely be sustained unless the irrigation area and therefore production is reduced. Instead, regulated deficit irrigation may be practiced on drought-tolerant crops and cultivars. Regulated deficit irrigation seeks to limit crop transpiration to a fraction of the maximum during less drought-sensitive growth stages. In this way, crop water use efficiency increases, and yield per m3 of water rather than m2 of land is maximized. Remote sensing of soil and crops through satellite and aerial multispectral and thermal products have the potential to enhance irrigation scheduling by precisely quantifying and distinguishing crop transpiration (beneficial water consumption) from soil evaporation (nonbeneficial water loss) in space and time and to facilitate regulated deficit irrigation and other water-saving measures. However, irrigation management significantly falls behind in adapting state of the art information and communication technologies.
With a global rise in frequency and duration of droughts, the lack of irrigation infrastructure in humid regions and of water availability in semiarid regions induces enormous losses in agricultural production and social well-being and unveils an urgent need for a macrolevel drought governance approach in order to strengthen multisectoral water management and mitigate climate change damage to human and natural assets.
Article
Policy Analysis and Investment Appraisal in the Water Sector
Edoardo Borgomeo
Since the earliest forms of human settlement, water resources have shaped societies and have been integral to their proper functioning. In developing—and maintaining—their relationship with water, societies have relied on myriad approaches to appraise options to manage water, that is, identifying expectations and objectives related to water and choosing the course of action to achieve them. This article describes some methodological issues of conventional approaches for policy analysis and investment appraisal in the water sector and then charts a way forward to further strengthen them to achieve water security in the Anthropocene.
Despite their clear benefits to society, demonstrated by extensive application to address water-related challenges around the world, conventional approaches to appraising policy options and investments suffer from some limitations. First, appraisal typically focuses on inputs and outputs, not paying enough attention to the outcomes and services that societies expect to obtain from water-related development. Second, appraisal methods still largely consider water as a plentiful resource, paying little attention to its opportunity cost and its multiple values to different users, including ecosystems. Third, most appraisals still ignore behavioural responses and societal dynamics arising from water-related policies and investments. A fourth limitation relates to the deterministic nature of appraisal that fails to properly account for uncertainties and interdependencies. Finally, appraisal still largely focuses on individual projects rather than portfolios of options, largely privileging technological fixes to respond to narrowly defined water-related challenges.
Methodological advances in the appraisal of policy options and investments provide a significant opportunity to overcome these limitations and build a more robust and inclusive platform to plan for water security. While further refinements are required, particularly to achieve deeper and more formal integration across disciplines, attention needs to focus on application and uptake of these methodological advances to address urgent water security challenges.
Article
Water and Spatial Planning in the Netherlands: The Latent Potential of Spatial Planning for Flood Resilience
Nikki Brand and Wil Zonneveld
In February 1953, an extremely powerful northwest storm surge combined with spring tide led to serious floods in a number of countries around the North Sea. No country was hit as badly as the Netherlands. In the southwest of the country, dozens of dikes were breached, leading to over 1,800 casualties. At the time of the 1953 disaster, a government-appointed committee was working on an advisory report about the desired future spatial development of the most urbanized western part of the country, a region largely below sea level. Responding to the 1953 disaster, the committee discussed whether urban development in deep polders should be avoided. The conclusion was that what is best in terms of the desired urban morphology should prevail. This is indeed what happened when the government had to make a choice about where to develop new towns (1960s–1980s) and, in the next stage, where to locate new housing estates in and around cities (1990s–2000s). Near floods along the main rivers of the country in 1992 and 1995 opened a window of opportunity for a series of major changes in flood risk management and in spatial planning and design, respectively. A massive program called Room for the River was carried out, which included more than 30 projects designed by multidisciplinary teams of civil engineers, planners, and spatial designers. Parallel and follow-up programs were carried out in which spatial design again played a role. The concept of risk was redefined in law, leading to more stringent protection norms for densely populated areas—again, a spatial turn in flood risk management. When flood risk management started to take a decisive spatial turn in the 1990s, spatial planning began to change as well, becoming more sensitive to issues related to water management and flood risks. One of these changes involved the mandatory use of a water test in (local) plan making. The continuation of the trend to give greater weight to flood risks became interrupted as the multilevel arrangement of planning in the Netherlands started to change from 2010 onward. This was largely the result of the neoliberal ambition to decentralize and deregulate planning. One main effect was that the government no longer took a leading role in locational choices regarding where to build new housing estates outside cities and towns. By the end of 2021, the government-appointed Delta commissioner issued a stark warning that over 80% of the houses that will be built by 2030 are situated in less desirable locations. This and other effects of the downscaling of planning competencies made the government decide to start a trajectory to partly recentralize planning. There are two contradictory objectives, however, claimed by different government departments: the production of new homes as quickly as possible and the ambition to make water and soil leading in future choices. Bringing flood risk management and spatial planning together means that locational choices and the spatial design of localities have to move in tandem.
Article
The Allocation of Groundwater: From Superstition to Science
Burke W. Griggs
Groundwater is a critical natural resource, but the law has always struggled with it. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, the common law developed several doctrines to allocate groundwater among competing users. The groundwater revolution of the mid-20th century produced an explosive growth in pumping worldwide—and quickly exposed the flaws of these doctrines. Legal rules predicated on land and on surface waters could not meet the challenges posed by the common-pool groundwater resource: those of understanding groundwater dynamics, quantifying the impacts of pumping on other water rights, and devising satisfactory remedies. Unfettered by received property restraints, pumping on an industrial, aquifer-wide scale depleted and contaminated aquifers, regardless of doctrine.
The groundwater revolution motivated significant legal developments. Starting in the 1970s, the Supreme Court of the United States adapted its methods for resolving interstate water disputes to include the effects of groundwater pumping. This jurisprudence has fundamentally influenced international groundwater law, including the negotiation of trans-boundary aquifer agreements. Advances in hydrogeology and computer groundwater modeling have enabled states and parties to evaluate the effects of basin-wide pumping. Nonetheless, difficult legal and governance problems remain. Which level of government—local, state, or national—should exercise jurisdiction over groundwater? What level of pumping qualifies as “safe yield,” especially when the aquifer is overdrawn? How do the demands of modern environmental law and the public trust doctrine affect groundwater rights? How can governments satisfy long-neglected claims to water justice made by Indigenous and minority communities? Innovations in groundwater management provide promising answers. The conjunctive management of surface and groundwater can stabilize water supplies, improve water quality, and protect ecosystems. Integrated water resources management seeks to holistically manage groundwater to achieve social and economic equity. Water markets can reward water conservation, attract new market participants, and encourage the migration of groundwater allocations to more valuable uses, including environmental uses.
The modern law of groundwater allocation combines older property doctrines with 21st-century regulatory ideals, but the mixture can be unstable. In nations with long-established water codes such as the United States, common-law Anglophone nations, and various European nations, groundwater law has evolved, if haltingly, to incorporate permitting systems, environmental regulation, and water markets. Elsewhere, the challenges are extreme. Long-standing calls for groundwater reform in India remain unheeded as tens of millions of unregulated tube wells pump away. In China, chronic groundwater mismanagement and aquifer contamination belie the roseate claims of national water law. Sub-Saharan nations have enacted progressive groundwater laws, but poverty, racism, and corruption have maintained grim groundwater realities. Across the field, experts have long identified the central problems and reached a rough consensus about the most effective solutions; there is also a common commitment to secure environmental justice and protect groundwater-dependent ecosystems. The most pressing legal work thus requires building practical pathways to reach these solutions and, most importantly, to connect the public with the groundwater on which it increasingly depends.
