Boundary of ecosystem services: Differentiating between ecosystem services and geosystem services is needed.

Geosystem services (GSs) and ecosystem services (ESs) are interconnected, both representing nature's contributions to people. Whether GSs are a subset of ESs depends on the definition of ESs. The answer would be "not necessarily" (i.e., some GSs are, while other GSs are not), if ESs are the benefits humans derive from ecological functions, processes, or characteristics. The boundary proposed by Chen et al. (2023) to differentiate ESs from other ecosystem-related benefits adopted this definition, and suggested that ESs are renewable and affected by biotic elements to occur. Gray et al. (2024) criticized this boundary for separating out bits of nature and ignoring the contributions of GSs and abiotic elements to ESs and human wellbeing. In fact, highlighting that ESs are affected by biotic elements to occur does not deny that ESs' occurrence is also affected by abiotic elements. However, ESs' dependence on abiotic elements cannot be a criterion to differentiate ESs from other benefits because abiotic elements are integral to geosystems, ecosystems, and many other natural and artificial systems, as well as to these systems' services. Conversely, while geosystems might persist without biotic elements, ecosystems cannot. Chen et al. (2023) only excluded those (not the whole) abiotic benefits, such as wind energy, that may occur independently of biotic elements, while allowing for integrating certain GSs into ESs. For example, geological structures can offer flood protection and water storage as GSs, which can also be classified as ESs when their qualities or quantities are affected by biotic elements. Differentiation between GSs and ESs should not be misinterpreted as splitting their interconnections or undervaluing or dividing nature. Instead, such differentiation and classification of nature's benefits serve to facilitate communication, management, education, research, and policy-making associated with nature's benefits, while also highlighting the richness and diversity of nature's benefits.

Integrating online deliberation into ecosystem service valuation.

Stated preference valuation of ecosystem services involves participants answering hypothetical questions to express preferences. Participants tend to respond to the hypothetical questions separately, without any deliberation (the process of considering and discussing within a group). However, a relatively recent development in deliberation research involves asking participants to state preferences via deliberation. Deliberation is historically conducted in-person but can now also be done online. This paper covers the strengths and limitations of integrating online deliberation into stated preference valuation, including: (1) comparison between stated preference valuation with and without deliberation, (2) comparison between in-person and online deliberation, and (3) comparison between online deliberation media, such as typing, video meetings, and voice calls. Conducting deliberation can broaden participants' understanding of the target ecosystem services and others' preferences. However, this requires participants' willingness to deliberate and increases time investment. Online deliberation has lower costs and travel restrictions and higher time efficiency and confidentiality of personal information than in-person deliberation. However, people with low abilities or willingness to use online media are disadvantaged. Differences in the online deliberation media may reduce or improve the inclusiveness, engagement, and openness of deliberations in ways that affect valuation results. We also provide suggestions for selecting deliberation media and mitigating deliberation bias derived from the choice of deliberation media. Further research should explore how to improve time efficiency and affordability of online deliberation, how to promote inclusiveness, engagement, and openness of online deliberation, and how different deliberation media affect deliberation quality and valuation results.

Boundary of ecosystem services: Guiding future development and application of the ecosystem service concepts.

Ecosystem Services (ESs) are either material or non-material benefits humans receive from ecosystems. Definitions, classifications, and typologies of ESs can vary to address different research and policy purposes. However, a boundary that distinguishes ESs from other ecosystem-related benefits (e.g., industrial products that consume raw materials, fossil fuels that used to be a part of ecosystems) is needed to avoid the risk of using ESs as an all-encompassing metaphor that captures any benefit. The boundary also maintains a common ground for communication and comparison of ESs across studies. To guide future development and application of the ES concepts, we suggest five criteria. ESs are (1) primary contributions of ecosystems, (2) flows assessed during a period or per time unit (not stock existing at a time point), (3) renewable (having the potential to be reproduced with a conceivable timeframe relevant to human use), (4) affected by biotic parts of ecosystems to occur. ESs include both biotic and some abiotic flows (e.g., water provisioning) but exclude abiotic flows (e.g., wind and solar energy) whose occurrence is unaffected by ecosystem functions, processes, or characteristics; and (5) inclusive to the benefits humans actually and potentially receive from ecosystems. These criteria link ESs with conservation of life-supporting and culturally important ecosystems, recognize use, option, and non-use values of ESs, and highlight ESs' sustainability.

A burning issue: Reviewing the socio-demographic and environmental justice aspects of the wildfire literature.

Larger and more severe wildfires are becoming more frequent and impacting different communities and human settlements. Much of the scientific literature and media on wildfires has focused on area of ecosystems burned and numbers of structures destroyed. Equally unprecedented, but often less reported, are the increasing socioeconomic impacts different people and communities face from wildfires. Such information seems to indicate an emerging need to account for wildfire effects on peri-urban or wildland urban interface (WUI) areas, newer socio-demographic groups, and disadvantaged communities. To address this, we reviewed the socio-demographic dimensions of the wildfire literature using an environmental justice (EJ) lens. Specifically using a literature review of wildfires, human communities, social vulnerability, and homeowner mitigation, we conducted bibliometric and statistical analyses of 299 publications. The majority of publications were from the United States, followed by Canada and Australia, and most dealt with homeowner mitigation of risk, defensible space, and fuel treatments in WUI areas. Most publications studied the direct effects of wildfire related damage. Secondary impacts such as smoke, rural and urban communities, and the role of poverty and language were less studied. Based on a proposed wildfire-relevant EJ definition, the first EJ publication was in 2004, but the term was first used as a keyword in 2018. Studies in WUI communities statistically decreased the likelihood that a publication was EJ relevant. There was a significant relationship between EJ designation and inclusion of race/ethnicity and poverty variables in the study. Complexity across the various definitions of EJ suggest that it should not be used as a quantitative or binary metric; but as a lens to better understand socio-ecological impacts to diverse communities. We present a wildfire-relevant definition to potentially guide policy formulation and account for social and environmental justice issues.

Changing climate, changing minds? The effects of natural disasters on public perceptions of climate change.

The frequency and intensity of natural disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires, and floods are predicted to change as greenhouse gas concentrations increase. These disasters may represent sources of information for individuals as they update their beliefs related to climate change. Using a dataset that includes climate beliefs of respondents, we examine the effect of natural disasters on climate change beliefs and find that hurricanes significantly increase the probability that survey respondents from a given county believe that climate change is occurring and that it is human caused. We find that past experience with certain types of natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes) impacts beliefs regarding whether climate change is occurring and if it is human caused. The research contributes to the literature evaluating climate change attitudes by using spatially disaggregate information on climate change beliefs and exposure to a set of natural disasters over time. Characterizing beliefs and attitudes toward climate change and related policies is important since these beliefs are a determinant of individual adaptation and support for policies related to reducing carbon emissions.

Stay-at-home orders and the willingness to stay home during the COVID-19 pandemic: A stated-preference discrete choice experiment.

The spread of COVID-19 in the Spring of 2020 prompted state and local governments to implement a variety of policies, including stay-at-home (SAH) orders and mandatory mask requirements, aimed at reducing the infection rate and the severity of the pandemic's impact. We implement a discrete choice experiment survey in three major U.S. States-California, Georgia, and Illinois-to empirically quantify individuals' willingness to stay (WTS) home, measured as the number of weeks of a potential new SAH order, to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 disease and explore factors leading to their heterogeneous WTS. Our results demonstrate broad support for statewide mask mandates. In addition, the estimate of WTS to lower new positive cases is quite large, approximately five and half weeks, even though staying home lowers utility. We also find that individuals recognize the trade-offs between case reduction and economic slowdown stemming from SAH orders when they decide to stay home or not. Finally, pandemic related factors such as age, ability to work from home, and unemployment status are the main drivers of the heterogeneity in individuals' WTS.