The Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) - between G-7+ countries and South Africa (2021), Indonesia (2022), Viet Nam (2022), and Senegal (2023) - aim to expedite coal phase out, promote renewables and incentivize a just transition. Past climate finance initiatives often fell short in terms of recipient countries' autonomy and their financing terms, transparency and objectives. Against this background, we ask: how can the JETPs initiate an inclusive and effective fossil fuel phase out and accelerate the energy transition? This study is the first comparative analysis of all four partnerships from a justice perspective. Drawing on institutional analysis, key policy documents and twenty-two expert interviews, we conclude that the JETPs: receive strong host country political support; involve a significant public finance pledge ($30.8 billion); prioritize countryowned investment plans; advance just transition frameworks; and spark vital discussions about the just energy transition. Nevertheless, the JETPs are inequitable because: of the International Partners Group's financial intransparency; a lack of high-quality just transition finance (only 3-4 % grants); distorted and untransparent consultations; numerous financial conditionalities; and a privatization focus. Moreover, they exclude the Global South countries facing the biggest challenges in phasing out fossil fuels. For the JETPs to be inclusive and effective, involved governments need to disclose financial terms from the outset, improve financing terms, streamline the number of funding schemes, add localization criteria, halt new fossil fuel investments, conduct robust emission target modelling, include and inform affected communities more actively, enhance accountability and prioritize more community based small-scale projects.

This article asks: How have climate injustices accumulated in climate negotiations, and how can a climate system justice approach be developed? It concludes that, first, without a just approach, climate change cannot be addressed. Second, it identifies six cumulative injustices: (a) delay of the long-term climate objective, (b) post-equitable sharing of the 'carbon budget', (c) ignoring stranded resources and assets, (d) adopting efficient but inequitable/ineffective mitigation instruments, (e) weak adaptation and loss and damage strategies and (f) a symptomatic not curative approach. This article concludes by calling for climate system justice, arguing that only a just approach enables effective climate policy.

The Paris Agreement has seen the adoption of a 1.5° to 2 °C climate target, based on the belief that climate change becomes ‘dangerous’ above this level. Since then, the scientific community and the countries most affected by global warming have reiterated that the maximum limit to be reached should be 1.5 °C. This paper goes one step further by questioning the reasoning behind the adoption of these targets, arguing that the fossil fuel-dependent political context in which they were adopted has undermined justice concerns. We highlight the political influence of the fossil fuels industry within target-setting negotiations, analyzing the evolution of climate targets and fossil fuel lobbying. We then harness published scientific evidence and the Earth System Justice framework to analyze the impacts of the 1.5 °C target, and the injustices that have so far been implicitly deemed acceptable. We argue that 1 °C would have been a far more just target and was undermined by vested interests and status quo maintenance. Finally, we propose just supply-side policies to ensure an adequate placement of responsibility on the fossil fuel industry. This way we (a) identify political influences and scientific blind spots that have and could continue to hinder climate action, (b) reveal how these influences delayed more ambitious climate objectives, contributing to the adoption of an unjust climate target, and (c) promote a focus on supply-side measures and polluting industries in order to break free from the impasse in the energy transition and foster more just outcomes.

Viticulture is an example of a socio-ecological system that poses serious challenges for sustainable soil management and pesticide use, with various interactions between winegrowers’ decision-making and ecological consequences. This study introduces an agent-based model (ABM) on winegrowers’ decision on inter-row management and pesticide use. The ABM builds upon an empirical study of winegrowers’ decision-making in European viticultural landscapes and has been built for three case study regions: Leithaberg (Austria), Palatinate (Germany) and Târnave (Romania). The ABM allows for analysing potential effects of policy instruments including mandatory vegetation cover in the inter-rows, the reduction of fungicide use and ban of insecticides against Lobesia botrana . The effects of policies differ between the case study regions, indicating how important the local context is for effective policies. For example, policies aiming at higher inter-row vegetation cover had the strongest effects on vegetation cover, landscape aesthetics and soil loss in Târnave since many vineyards are currently intensively tilled and there exist no policies supporting inter-row vegetation cover in Romania.

European viticultural landscapes not only support a significant share of rural livelihoods and cultural traditions, but also conserve biodiversity and sustain various ecosystem services. Winegrowers' practices of inter-row management (including whether to have vegetation in the inter-rows, type of vegetation, duration of vegetation cover, and soil tillage) and pesticide use (including herbicides in the inter-rows, fungicides, insecticides, and pheromone dispensers as an alternative) can affect these services. This study aims to understand winegrowers' decision-making driven by their personal characteristics, attitudes and beliefs towards viticultural practices, physical properties of vineyards, and farm management characteristics in five European winegrowing regions. These include Palatinate in Germany, Leithaberg in Austria, Tarnave in Romania, Bordeaux in France, and Montilla-Moriles in Spain. Based on a questionnaire survey, we constructed decision trees for each behaviour per case study as well as in a generic European model. We found factors that best explain how winegrowers manage their inter-rows and use pesticides. Results showed that not only do behaviours of winegrowers vary drastically across the case studies, but also the factors that explain most behaviours: farmers' attitudes and beliefs and farm management characteristics. This implies the importance of attitudes and beliefs – which are under-researched as compared to other factors – in understanding farmers' behaviour. With the driving factors found to vary per case study, our results also imply the need for locally-adapted policies. Furthermore, our results suggest that the effects of climate change on European viticultural landscapes concern not only shifting production regions and changes in yields, but also changing pressure of pests and diseases. Any long-term behavioural change requires efforts from many stakeholders.

Dynamics of coupled Social-Ecological Systems (SES) result from the interplay of society and ecology. To assess SES resilience, we constructed an Agent-Based Model (ABM) of a land use system as a stereotypical example of SES and investigated how resilience of the represented system is affected by both external disturbances and internal dynamics. The model explicitly considered different aspects of resilience in a framework derived from literature, which includes "resilience to", "resilience of", "resilience at", "resilience due to", and "indicators of resilience". External disturbances were implemented as shocks in crop yields. Internal dynamics comprised of two types of social interaction between agents (learning and cooperation), an ecological feedback of soil depletion and an economic feedback of agglomeration benefits. We systematically varied these mechanisms and measured indicators that reflected spatial, social, and economic resilience. Results showed that (1) internal mechanisms increased the ability of the system to recover from external shocks, (2) feedbacks resulted in different regimes of crop cultivation, each with a distinctive set of functions, and (3) resilience is not a generic system property, but strongly depends on what system function is considered. We recommend future studies to include internal dynamics, especially feedbacks, and to systematically assess them across different aspects of resilience.

为非人类自然实体确立内在价值是环境伦理学的关键议题之一.在环境整体主义框架内,克里考特和罗尔斯顿的内在价值学说被认为是对此问题最有希望的两种解决方案.本文将具体分析克里考特从对自然主义内在价值论方法的整体批评出发,以"价值人类生成论"和量子物理学对主客二分的消弭这两种理论为基础,所提出的超越主观主义和客观主义对立的自然内在价值学说.同时澄清克里考特和罗尔斯顿的自然内在价值学说仅存在具体理论发展路径上的差异,不存在根本的理论动机和目标上的差异,因此不能视之为两种截然相反的观点.最后,通过论证克里考特内在价值学说无法通过"最后人类"问题的检验,揭示出其学说作为环境伦理学理论仍然需要更进一步的阐释和发展.

Land systems are characterised by many feedbacks that can result in complex system behaviour. We defined feedbacks as the two-way influences between the land use system and a related system (e.g., climate, soils and markets), both of which are encompassed by the land system. Land models that include feedbacks thus probably more accurately mimic how land systems respond to, e.g., policy or climate change. However, representing feedbacks in land models is a challenge. We reviewed articles incorporating feedbacks into land models and analysed each with predefined indicators. We found that (1) most modelled feedbacks couple land use systems with transport, soil and market systems, while only a few include feedbacks between land use and social systems or climate systems; (2) equation-based land use models that follow a top-down approach prevail; and (3) feedbacks' effects on system behaviour remain relatively unexplored. We recommend that land system modellers (1) consider feedbacks between land use systems and social systems; (2) adopt (bottom-up) approaches suited to incorporating spatial heterogeneity and better representing land use decision-making; and (3) pay more attention to nonlinear system behaviour and its implications for land system management and policy.

Facing up with energy crisis and global warming, Paris city government enacted the "Plan Climat de Paris" in 2004 to cut down the city greenhouse gas emission and stop the climate change. This plan includes amending the current urban planning system in the following fours aspects: planning code, transport and displacement, urban building and green space. It built up a new way for urban planning "with the guidance of improving the city climate" and assured a goal of 30% decrease in "greenhouse gas" in Paris urban area 2020.

Land systems are Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) — they are composed of heterogeneous and autonomous entities who interact with each other and with their environment. Land system dynamics take place at the interface of land use, soil, climate, market, technology and policy, in which processes are linked to each other in the form of feedbacks between subsystems and across scale levels. These feedbacks often result in nonlinear behaviour, which challenges our understanding and management of land systems. The ability of land system models to represent, investigate, and understand feedbacks is made possible, largely due to the recent developments in Agent-Based Models (ABM), which grow in parallel with CAS research. This thesis aims to contribute to the knowledge on the effects of feedbacks on land system behaviour. To do so I systematically review existing models and construct a series of ABMs to explore the effects of feedbacks. In Chapter 1, I introduce land systems as Complex Adaptive Systems, the importance of studying land system feedbacks, and the thesis outline. In chapter 2, I provide a review on the current state of the art regarding feedback representations in land models. In chapter 3, I introduce a stylised land use ABM in which feedbacks are incorporated to explore how they result in nonlinear system behaviour. In chapter 4, the stylised ABM is modified to explore under what conditions land system hysteresis emerge. In chapter 5, the complexity of the stylised ABM is further increased to assess land system resilience. Results are synthesised in chapter 6 to provide insights into land system complexity and the effects of feedbacks. The synthesis is followed by critical reflections on model representation and recommendations on land system science, modelling, and policymaking. To conclude, in this thesis feedbacks are explored in terms of their effects on complex land system behaviour. Specifically, feedbacks are found to exist between different subsystems and scale levels, to result in distinctive types of behaviour, to affect the existence of hysteresis, and to contribute to land system resilience.