Subjective approaches to resilience measurement are gaining traction as a complementary approach to the standard frameworks that typically contain objective measures. Proponents suggest that subjective approaches may add value to existing measures in three areas: by improving our understanding of the drivers of resilience, reducing the questionnaire burden on respondents, and potentially offering more valid cross-cultural comparisons. This perspective assesses the potential, evidence and uncertainties around each of these claims, drawing from decades of research using subjective techniques in the wellbeing and psychological resilience literatures. Overall we find that subjective approaches can theoretically add value in each of these three areas. However the design of appropriate indicators must proceed with specificity and rigour for subjective measures to add value to programming and policy for climate resilience. 1 Introduction to subjective measures Subjective measures are those that gauge the perceptions, opinions, preferences or selfassessments of individuals (Maxwell et al. 2015) and there is growing interest in their application to measuring climate resilience (

China is under pressure to improve its agricultural productivity to keep up with the demands of a growing population with increasingly resource-intensive diets. This productivity improvement must occur against a backdrop of carbon intensity reduction targets, and a highly fragmented, nutrient-inefficient farming system. Moreover, the Chinese government increasingly recognizes the need to rationalize the management of the 800 million tonnes of agricultural crop straw that China produces each year, up to 40% of which is burned in-field as a waste. Biochar produced from these residues and applied to land could contribute to China's agricultural productivity, resource use efficiency and carbon reduction goals. However competing uses for China's straw residues are rapidly emerging, particularly from bioenergy generation. Therefore it is important to understand the relative economic viability and carbon abatement potential of directing agricultural residues to biochar rather than bioenergy. Using cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and life-cycle analysis (LCA), this paper therefore compares the economic viability and carbon abatement potential of biochar production via pyrolysis, with that of bioenergy production via briquetting and gasification. Straw reincorporation and in-field straw burning are used as baseline scenarios. We find that briquetting straw for heat energy is the most cost-effective carbon abatement technology, requiring a subsidy of $7 MgCO 2 e À1 abated. However China's current bioelectricity subsidy scheme makes gasification (NPV $12.6 million) more financially attractive for investors than both briquetting (NPV $7.34 million), and pyrolysis ($À1.84 million). The direct carbon abatement potential of pyrolysis (1.06 MgCO 2 e per odt straw) is also lower than that of briquetting (1.35 MgCO 2 e per odt straw) and gasification (1.16 MgCO 2 e per odt straw). However indirect carbon abatement processes arising from biochar application could significantly improve the carbon abatement potential of the pyrolysis scenario. Likewise, increasing the agronomic value of biochar is essential for the pyrolysis scenario to compete as an economically viable, cost-effective mitigation technology.

Biochar has garnered much attention for its potential to improve farming productivity and sustainability by amending soil, enhancing crop yields, improving fertilizer use efficiency and sequestering carbon. However, few publications consider farmer perspectives on whether biochar is attractive as an agricultural input. This paper therefore investigates the micro-economics and social suitability of biochar in four contrasting Chinese agricultural systems, using linear optimization models and qualitative contextual data. Results demonstrate that commercially produced biochar is uneconomic as an independent farming input, whilst farm-produced biochar shows promise in just one of four case-study sites. This suggests that biochar research in China should shift away from on-farm production and application of pure biochar, towards combined biochar-inorganic fertilizer products