To address environmental pollution by plastic litter, the European Union adopted EU Directive 2019/904, the so called "Single-Use Plastics Directive" (SUPD), which bans several single-use plastic products and addresses additional items with measures such as extended producer responsibility and obligatory requirements for product redesign. This study assessed the potential of the SUPD to reduce litter pollution in the environment with three scenarios. The "best case" scenario assumed that all measures of the SUPD completely prevent targeted items from getting into the environment. Another scenario assumed that no measures besides bans were effective. An intermediate scenario assumed partial effectiveness of measures. Data of almost 5,000 sampling events from citizen science protocols (Plastic Pirates, International Coastal Cleanup, Marine Litter Watch) and the OSPAR protocol were used to analyse litter at riversides and coastlines in Germany and the European Union. 44 to 68% of litter items in citizen science protocols consisted of single-use plastics (cigarette butts were the most prominent items). At coastlines sampled by the OSPAR protocol, fishing gear and undefined plastics prevailed. The scenario analysis revealed that substantial litter reductions could be achieved in the "best case" scenario (upwards of 40%), while the intermediate scenario resulted in litter reductions of 13 to 25%. The marginal effect of the "only bans" scenario achieved a reduction of 2-6% in Germany and the European Union, respectively. Thus, depending on implementation and enforcement, the current SUPD can be an important first step, yet further legislative actions are needed to effectively prevent plastic waste pollution.

Subsoil, commonly defined as horizons below the working depth of 30 cm, has traditionally received little explicit attention in policy discussions on soils. Recently, however, there has been growing recognition among scientists of the issues of subsoil (re-)compaction and of the role of subsoil as a resource that can offer valuable nutrients and water for plants. Subsoil management could provide an option to sustainably maintain yields in the context of climate change and resource scarcity, and it is a central question in addressing subsoil compaction. Yet how socially acceptable are different methods for subsoil management? Drawing on in-depth interviews with farmers and stakeholders in Germany, we show that biophysical conditions, the timing of operations, economic considerations, and awareness of subsoil functions are key factors in the acceptance of management methods. Views towards methods involving mechanical intervention are more diverse and in some cases more critical because the benefits are not always certain, the costs can outweigh the benefits, and/or because they entail risks for soil structure and functions. Alfalfa cultivation is seen to be beneficial for yields without risks for soil structure and functions; however, economic barriers limit its uptake. Awareness of multiple subsoil functions is associated with more critical views of mechanical interventions.

The subsoil, commonly defined as horizons below the working depth of 30 cm, often receives little attention in farming practice. Yet plants extract between 10 and 80% of their nutrient and water requirements from the subsoil. Recent research indicates that subsoil amelioration measures, which enhance water storage capacity, root penetration and microbial activity, could contribute to stabilizing yields in times of drought. Therefore, we investigated farmers' and other soil experts' perceptions of subsoil amelioration as an approach to adapt to climate change as well as the factors that influence their willingness to adopt specific measures to improve the subsoil. We applied the Q-method combined with focus groups in two case study regions in Germany. Two subsoil amelioration techniques were considered: (1) Deep loosening combined with the incorporation of compost into deep soil layers (30–60 cm) and (2) the cultivation of alfalfa as deep-rooting pre-crop. Our results show three distinct views on subsoil amelioration, which we termed as the “pioneers,” the “skeptics,” and the “ecologists.” While the pioneers were open toward applying deep loosening combined with incorporation of compost into the subsoil, the skeptics had concerns about the method and perceived it as hardly feasible in practice, and the ecologists clearly preferred biological approaches such as alfalfa cultivation. Despite the different views, all three perspectives view subsoil amelioration as a useful approach to adapt to changing climate conditions. In conclusion, we identified a number of factors that influence the willingness to implement specific techniques to improve the subsoil: economic and farm-level considerations, awareness of subsoil functions, environmental awareness, individual norms and beliefs as well as risk perception. We recommend considering these factors in the design of a policy framework that promotes subsoil amelioration in Germany. Our findings could be of relevance for agricultural systems around the world, which are prone to drought risk.

Public acceptance can play an important role in determining the trajectory of hydropower development and modernization as well as the adoption of mitigation measures. Particularly in the planning stages of hydropower projects and modernization, local public resistance may delay progress and completion. For this reason, it is important to understand how to study local public perceptions of hydropower to improve project implementation and reduce public resistance. This chapter provides an overview of public perception of hydropower projects, describes methods for studying public acceptance and presents an application of the Q-methodology in four Europe case studies from hydropower-intensive regions.