Soil erosion is a major global soil degradation threat to land, freshwater, and oceans. Wind and water are the major drivers, with water erosion over land being the focus of this work; excluding gullying and river bank erosion. Improving knowledge of the probable future rates of soil erosion, accelerated by human activity, is important both for policy makers engaged in land use decision-making and for earth-system modelers seeking to reduce uncertainty on global predictions. Here we predict future rates of erosion by modeling change in potential global soil erosion by water using three alternative (2.6, 4.5, and 8.5) Shared Socioeconomic Pathway and Representative Concentration Pathway (SSP-RCP) scenarios. Global predictions rely on a high spatial resolution Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)-based semiempirical modeling approach (GloSEM). The baseline model (2015) predicts global potential soil erosion rates of ${43}_{-7}^{+9.2}$ Pg yr⁻¹, with current conservation agriculture (CA) practices estimated to reduce this by ∼5%. Our future scenarios suggest that socioeconomic developments impacting land use will either decrease (SSP1-RCP2.6–10%) or increase (SSP2-RCP4.5 +2%, SSP5-RCP8.5 +10%) water erosion by 2070. Climate projections, for all global dynamics scenarios, indicate a trend, moving toward a more vigorous hydrological cycle, which could increase global water erosion (+30 to +66%). Accepting some degrees of uncertainty, our findings provide insights into how possible future socioeconomic development will affect soil erosion by water using a globally consistent approach. This preliminary evidence seeks to inform efforts such as those of the United Nations to assess global soil erosion and inform decision makers developing national strategies for soil conservation. Significance We use the latest projections of climate and land use change to assess potential global soil erosion rates by water to address policy questions; working toward the goals of the United Nations working groups under the Inter-Governmental Technical Panel on Soils of the Global Soil Partnership. This effort will enable policy makers to explore erosion extent, identify possible hotspots, and work with stakeholders to mitigate impacts. In addition, we provide insight into the potential mitigating effects attributable to conservation agriculture and the need for more effective policy instruments for soil protection. Scientifically, the modeling framework presented adopts a series of methodological advances and standardized data to communicate with adjacent disciplines and move toward robust, reproducible, and open data science.

Traditionally focused on external constraints, economists are increasingly recognizing the importance of internal constraints that reflect perceptions as much as reality. Perceived self-efficacy (PSE)—individuals’ perception of their domain-specific capabilities—fundamentally shapes these internal constraints and thereby drives economic behavior. Without sufficient PSE, individuals have little reason to invest greater effort or attempt anything new. Individuals with higher PSE set more ambitious goals, try harder, and persist more diligently. Such proactive engagement in perceiving and creating possibilities is often either ignored or implicitly assumed in simple optimization models. Growing evidence from psychology and economics suggests that PSE deserves greater attention. We review the theoretical and empirical literature on PSE with a focus on its relevance to poverty and economic development. We discuss promising avenues for future research at the interface of PSE and poverty as part of the broader frontier of behavioral development economics.

Agri‐environmental schemes are an important policy tool to foster agricultural sustainability. We assess the effectiveness and return on investment of two different schemes designed to encourage biodiversity conservation in Switzerland: payments for actions and payments for results. Empirically, we exploit a major policy reform that created a natural experiment by abruptly and unevenly increasing both payments across farmers. Using difference in differences, we estimate the effect of the policy reform on farmers for whom only the action‐ or the results‐based payments increased, as well as on those for whom both increased, compared to farmers for whom neither increased. Our findings are fourfold: First, higher payments increased the biodiversity conservation area. A payment raise by 1% increased conservation areas on average by 0.6% in the action based, and by 1% in the results‐based scheme. Second, the combination of both schemes increased average effectiveness but also windfall gains. Third, using a benefit transfer approach, we estimate a positive return of investment for all payment increases. Finally, the estimated return on investment for the results‐based payments is higher than for the action‐based payments.