Incorporating soil ecosystem services into urban planning: status, challenges and opportunities

Incorporating soil ecosystem services into urban planning: status, challenges and opportunities Landscape Ecol https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0652-x RESEARCH AR TIC L E Incorporating soil ecosystem services into urban planning: status, challenges and opportunities . . . Ricardo Teixeira da Silva Luuk Fleskens Hedwig van Delden Martine van der Ploeg Received: 19 June 2017 / Accepted: 17 May 2018 The Author(s) 2018 Abstract studies in the past decade that focus on soil-related Context Traditionally soils have not received much ecosystem services in urban context. attention in urban planning. For this, tools are needed Results The results show an overall weak attention that can both be understood both by soil scientists and to soil and soil-related ecosystem services in the urban planners. implementation and monitoring phases of urban plans. Purpose The purpose of this paper is to enhance the The majority of soil science case studies uses a role of soil knowledge in urban planning practice, haphazard approach to measure ecosystem service through the following objectives: (1) identifying the indicators which may not capture the ecosystem role soil plays in recent urban plans; (2) analysing the services appropriately and hence lack relevance for ecosystem services and indicators used in soil science urban planning. in an urban context; and (3) inferring the main Conclusions Even though the most urban plans challenges and opportunities to integrate soil into assessed recognize soil as a key resource, most of urban planning. them fail to integrate indicators to measure or monitor Methods Seven urban plans and reports of world soil-related functions. There is a need to develop soil- cities that include sustainability goals were analysed related ecosystem services that can be easily inte- using text-mining and qualitative analysis, with a grated and understood by other fields. critical view on the inclusion of soil-related concepts. Secondly, the contribution of soil science to urban Keywords Soil  Ecosystem services  Urban planning was assessed with an overview of case planning  Sustainable development  Integrated planning R. Teixeira da Silva (&)  L. Fleskens  M. van der Ploeg Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Introduction The Netherlands e-mail: ricardo.teixeiradasilva@wur.nl Cities are important economic, social and cultural H. van Delden hubs characterised by continuous population dynam- Research Institute for Knowledge Systems, Maastricht, ics that lead to a multitude of pressures and impacts The Netherlands that need to be managed by the local governments. These dynamics impact on land use change and, H. van Delden The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia 123 Landscape Ecol therefore, keep presenting challenges to urban plan- not fully integrated in planning strategies (Artmann ners and policy makers, in particular, the integration of 2014). environmental aspects with the new urban areas One area where integration of soil knowledge could (Hurlimann and March 2012). Such problems are help urban planning is in considering the role soils exacerbated by the United Nations estimation of an play in water cycle regulation, a function that gets lost increase in the global population of 2.5 billion people when soils are sealed (McGrane 2016). Exploiting this by 2050 (United Nations 2014). Even though 90% of role of soils will become increasingly important as the estimated increase in population is projected to be climate change exacerbates current issues, for exam- concentrated in Asia and Africa, recent studies show ple it is expected that precipitation events become that urban growth is likely to continue to be relevant more intense, resulting in floods in residential areas on all continents due to migration to bigger cities with large impacts (McGranahan et al. 2007). Such (Lauf et al. 2016). Considerable soil sealing is already prospects require a complex management of environ- taking place (Seto et al. 2011) leading to environmen- mental resources, hence magnifying the need for tal concerns such as loss of agricultural area (Gardi integrated planning. Spatial planning can be under- et al. 2014) or loss of infiltration areas (Di Sun et al. stood as the ‘‘decision-making process aimed at 2018). Many of these concerns are soil-related, and realizing economic, social cultural and environmental may affect achieving the Sustainable Development goals through the development of spatial visions, strategies and plans and the application of a set of Goals (SDG’s) in urban areas. The ecosystem services concept is gaining considerable traction for studying policy principles, tools, institution and participatory these human–environment interactions in an inte- mechanisms and regulatory procedures’’ (UN-Habitat grated way. 2015). Therefore, urban planning in this article refers Ecosystem services (ES) are understood as the to the planning of a spatial/geographical unit, with a benefits that humans obtain from the environment focus on the urban/city scale. (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003). Address- The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) of ing the SDG’s in urban areas necessitates a combina- the United Nations include three goals that have a tion of socio-economic and environmental monitoring strong focus on cities and functions of soil. The goal tools. ES can serve as the framework to achieve that ‘‘Sustainable cities and communities’’, ‘‘Responsible combination. Despite increasing interest to use the ES consumption and production’’ and ‘‘Life on earth’’ are concept as a means to transfer knowledge from linked to a better management of soil (van Haren and environmental sciences to decision makers and plan- van Boxtel 2017). While decision-making at national ners (Haase et al. 2014), only initial steps have been and international level is important to prioritize and set taken in studies/plans to do integrated assessments on sustainable development goals, the local and regional the links between urban functionalities and environ- scale are critical in achieving those targets. Regional mental aspects (Guerry et al. 2015). Examples of and urban planning needs to integrate sustainability urban environmental challenges that could benefit goals into local policies and priorities, and therefore from integrated ecosystem service assessments are requires not only strategic targets but also working water retention and regulation (Stu ¨ rck et al. 2014), with concrete local characteristics (Wilson 2006). climate regulation (Ghaley et al. 2014) or biomass Soil scientists have in the past decades promoted production (Larondelle and Haase 2012). Soils play a the critical importance of soil in solving global issues crucial role in providing these urban ecosystem such as food security or water scarcity (Mol and services (Seta ¨la ¨ et al. 2014; Morel et al. 2015). Soils Keesstra 2012). However, many more efforts still need are one of the hot topics in recent environmental to be made to better transfer the knowledge acquired scientific literature and, at the same time, one of the on other benefits of soils to society (Lang et al. 2012; most unknown natural resources for civil society Keesstra et al. 2016). There is already an extensive (Baveye et al. 2016; Keesstra et al. 2016). The knowledge on the properties and performance (in integration of soil knowledge into planning practice terms of productivity) of soil and more recently many is still a challenge, in particular in urban areas where advances have been made regarding the development sustainable soil management measures are often not or of soil ecosystem services frameworks (Dominati et al. 2010; Schwilch et al. 2016). However, there is a 123 Landscape Ecol limited knowledge transfer of soil-related ES into was a focus on urban functionality and less on urban planning practices (Go ´ mez-Baggethun and environmental aspects. An exception was the Garden Barton 2013). Cities movement, in the beginning of the 20th century, The main goal of this paper is to address where and which intended to focus more on integration of green how urban planning and soil science communities can areas and their wider benefits for urban residents. be complementary and learn from each other. In However, as a theory, it was not widely used amongst particular, this paper focuses on reviewing and the planning community (Clark 2003). assessing the status, challenges and opportunities of Since the last decade of the 20th century, urban soil in the urban context. It addresses the following planning suffered structural changes in the planning research questions: (1) What is the role of soil in urban theories that lead to disruptive changes (Friedmann planning?; (2) What is the state-of-the-art of ES in soil 1998). The United Nations Conference on Environ- knowledge transfer into urban planning?; and (3) ment and Development, in 1992, contributed to a What are the main challenges and opportunities to change on the world perspective on the importance of integrate soil into urban planning? The first research the environment and its natural resources (Campbell question is addressed by an in-depth review of the role 1996). This conference also had a big impact on of soil in seven case studies of recent sustainable urban planning, not only on the definition of sustainability planning strategies. This review seeks to identify in goals but also on the tools and processes used. Yet, even though there has been an increased focus on what contexts (if any) soils are mentioned in the plans. We deploy both quantitative data mining and quali- environmental performance indicators, there is still a tative assessment approaches to consider the relative paucity of knowledge about soils in an urban context importance of soil as an environmental resource in (Artmann 2014). In summary, planning is historically urban plans as well as better understand the context in targeted at the socio-economic functions cities provide which reference is made to soil. The second question is (Scott 2001). Due to this emphasis, environmental addressed with a focused literature review on soil- considerations received less attention. We hypothesize related ES frameworks and an inventory of case that this is one of the reasons that has led to a weak studies into soil-related ES assessment in urban areas. linkage with soil. Based on the results from questions 1 and 2, the last question is addressed by compiling the level of An initial approach: text mining attention to soil and soil-related ES in plans, across planning phases, ES covered and relevance of indica- Planning theories are moving towards a better inte- tors, and identifying opportunities to create better links gration of sustainable development goals into urban between soil science and urban planning. planning practices, which has led to an integration of natural resources into planning. Reports and urban plans are the main tools in urban planning, but, due to The role of soil in urban planning their local and goal-specific nature it is difficult to compare different case studies. To tackle this question The urban planning context we made a selection of seven recent urban planning reports (Table 1) that include sustainable development Urban planning is essential for the development of targets and identified soil-related topics. The reason- ing for the selection of the case studies was: (1) cities and urban communities because it is the technical and political process concerned with the Location—to provide a wide coverage and under- future development and use of land (Savery and standing, at least one case study from each continent, Chastel 2009). Up until late in the 20th century, except for Antarctica; (2) Relevance—cities with size, planning practices focused mainly on urban functions, history and relevance that are also a role-model within such as development of industrial areas and infras- a (inter)national context; (3) Goals—Reports or plans tructure (Simmonds and Hack 2000). Green areas that focus on sustainable development goals for the were seen as vital for the population, but they were city; (4) Accessibility—data and language accessibil- regarded by urban planners as an urban feature, mainly ity by the authors; and (5) Time frame—not older than for recreational purposes. As such, traditionally, there 10 years. 123 Landscape Ecol Table 1 Identification of the urban plans used as case studies Plan City Continent Pop. (1 9 10 ) Year Sustainable Sydney 2030 Sydney Australia 4.9 2014 Plano Diretor de Ordenamento Territorial do Distrito Federal Brası ´lia South America 2.9 2009 The London Plan London Europe 8.6 2016 Cape Town Spatial Development Framework Cape Town Africa 3.7 2012 Urban Development in Tokyo Tokyo Asia 13.6 2011 Ontwikkelingsbeeld 2040 voor de Metropoolregio Amsterdam Amsterdam Europe 2.4 2007 Strategic Plan 2015–2020 Boston North America 4.6 2015 An initial overall assessment of the content of the word ‘‘food’’ has the most unbalanced distribution of reports was performed by applying a text mining the ranking and word count across the different technique (RapidMiner 2016) to identify and rank the documents, indicating that ‘‘food’’ might not have most frequently used words and expressions of each the same relevance in the future goals defined in each document (Table 2). From the assessment, it is clear document. that ‘‘land’’ and ‘‘water’’ are deemed important aspects for sustainable urban development given the consis- The urban plans: in-depth description tent high rank of these words across all plans assessed (Fig. 1). Even though the words ‘‘land’’ and ‘‘water’’ To assess and discuss the role of soil across the are often used, there are fewer mentions of specific selected urban plans in more depth, the information of risks and opportunities related to soil. Furthermore, each plan was analysed and grouped on five transver- while mentions of water properties, such as ‘‘water sal topics: (1) Goals related with soil (functions or quality’’, are distributed evenly across the reports, properties); (2) Soil references in the Appraisal attention to some words is much more skewed. The section—i.e. the section where the current problems Table 2 Assessment of selected urban planning reports based on text mining RapidMiner (2016) Boston Cape Town London Sydney Tokyo Brası ´lia Amsterdam Sum of ranks Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Water 3 (167) 2 (64) 2 (201) 1 (96) 2 (13) 1 (413) 1 (62) 12 Land 2 (508) 1 (437) 1 (255) 3 (26) 1 (75) 4 (29) 2 (17) 14 Flood (risk)/flooding 10 (10) 3 (27) 3 (103) 2 (63) 4 (1) 8 (1) 5 (6) 35 Soil 5 (80) 7 (2) 9 (3) 5 (3) 3 (5) 2 (174) 7 (3) 38 Food 1 (3328) 6 (9) 4 (41) 4 (12) 10 (0) 8 (1) 9 (1) 42 Food production 4 (111) 10 (0) 6 (4) 5 (3) 10 (0) 3 (36) 9 (1) 47 Water quality 8 (26) 7 (2) 5 (8) 7 (1) 10 (0) 6 (3) 5 (6) 48 Agricultural resources 6 (32) 7 (2) 10 (0) 10 (0) 10 (0) 10 (0) 5 (6) 58 c c Ecosystems 9 (24) 5 (20) 9 (3) 10 (0) 10 (0) 5 (22) 10 (0) 105 Natural resources 7 (28) 5 (20) 9 (3) 10 (0) 10 (0) 10 (0) 7 (3) 105 Rank of the words/expressions according to the word count within each document. In parenthesis the absolute number of words in the document is indicated The ‘‘Sum of Ranks’’ is the result of adding all rank values. Such approach allows comparing the relation between different words, e.g., the smaller the value, the bigger the importance in the overall ranking of the word In case of equal word count, both words obtained the same rank and the lowest of the two ranks was selected to ensure that words with no reference across the document were assigned a rank of 10 123 Landscape Ecol Boston Cape Town London Sydney Tokyo Brasília Amsterdam 9 Fig. 1 Word count ranking distribution are identified; (3) Soil references in the Plan section— indicators as a tool for climate change impact assess- i.e. the section where goals or concrete measures are ment. Ecosystem services are considered in the plan as proposed; (4) Soil references in the Monitoring a tool to assess environmental impacts, but as well as a section—i.e. the section where strategies to monitor tool to monitor the performance of the environment the implementation of the plan are proposed; and (5) and wellbeing of the population. Some general Monitoring indicators/ecosystem services proposed. indicators are suggested (cultural, social, environmen- Below is a brief description of the findings, presented tal, economic and demographic) but are not proposed for each city. in detail; instead the report suggests developing them further in future annual reports. In the proposed Sydney measures, soil functions are mentioned indirectly, through the goal to increase areas to promote biodi- The Sustainable Sydney 2030 plan was developed by versity and food production in and around the city of the City of Sydney and aims to define a long-term Sydney. sustainable strategy for the city. The scope of the plan is intended to be broader than just defining environ- Cape Town mental goals by, for example, also defining commu- nity goals. The plan focuses on visions and goals, The Cape Town Spatial Development Framework has rather than concrete measures. One of the main goals the main objective ‘‘to guide and manage urban of the plan is to turn the city of Sydney into ‘‘a leading growth, and to balance competing land use demands, environmental performer’’ and international refer- by putting in place a long-term logical development ence, by tackling climate change mitigation and path that will shape the spatial form and structure of adaptation and assuring the quality of life for the Cape Town’’ (City of Cape Town 2012). This plan population. The broad scope of the plan and the lack of assumes that urban expansion is inevitable, so the concrete measures lead to weak references to soil. main focus of the framework is also to integrate the Most of the references to soil are made indirectly, urban expansion with the city’s needs in terms of e.g. through proposed goals to create additional space economic, natural and social resources. The main for urban green and food production. There is a clear goals are ambitious and supported by a vision—‘‘Cape reference to the potential of using ecosystem service Town Vision 2040’’—which make the goals very Food Land Water Soil Flood (risk)/Flooding Water Quality Food producon Ecosystems Natural resources Agricultural resources Landscape Ecol broad. Soils are mentioned indirectly, e.g. ‘‘identifi- The main soil-related references in the plan are in cation of areas suitable for new urban development the general goals for the future of Tokyo: (1) based on the impact on natural resources’’. The report Promotion of comprehensive flood control measures; has a clear focus on providing guidelines for the (2) Greenery network; and (3) Water resources and implementation of the ‘‘Vision 2040’’, resulting in a effective use. However, despite the three goals very detailed description of measures to be imple- defined, there are no further references to soil besides mented and a lesser focus on the current issues and the proposed measure ‘‘creation of Green Production future monitoring possibilities. Districts’’. This measure aims to protect identified Soil is addressed in the report mainly indirectly, via areas with relevance for the city, mainly due to their its functions or implications, such as the contribution of scenic and recreational value. The document aims to impervious areas to increased stormwater runoff. present the main urban projects for the future of the When looking to the individual sections of the plan city, and therefore lacks information on the actual (appraisal, plan and monitoring) it is also possible to environmental problems of the city and on future identify the lack of soil-related concepts or weak links monitoring strategies. between them. For example, the appraisal section refers mainly to water-related problems and drivers, Brası´lia such as water demand management, water quality or Brası ´lia is one of the few megacities in the world that the implication of climate change in flood risk areas. In this section, soil is also indirectly addressed as a has had urban planning strategies since its beginning. concern in urban fringe areas due to the loss of It was planned to be the capital of Brazil and it has agricultural areas to new urban developments. In the grown to be the fourth biggest city in the country with plan section, there are many suggestions of measures to an estimated population of 2.9 million in 2016 (IBGE be implemented with the plan; notwithstanding, the 2016). The Regional Spatial Master Plan (Governo do link between the soil-related issues identified in the distrito Federal 2009) aims at defining the future urban first part and the proposed measures is not always clear. strategies by promoting a sustainable use of the land For example, one of the proposed measures is ‘‘protect functions and a balance between social, economic and and enhance the city’s rural environment’’ and it is environmental dimensions. Soil, as other natural detailed as sub-measures ‘‘develop and manage rural resources, is within the overall target of protection gateways’’ or ‘‘rationalise and proactively manage and valorisation of the natural resources and heritage. smallholdings’’; however, there are no guidelines or The Brası ´lia Master Plan is a comprehensive and indications on the implication for the natural resources. detailed plan, i.e., with an extensive appraisal section and, in particular, a variety of proposed measures for Tokyo the metropolitan area of Brası ´lia. Most of the issues identified are related with the sensitivity of soils to With a population of over 13 million people, Tokyo is erosion and water availability for agriculture and a megacity and a metropolitan area with a major human consumption. The plan also identifies the importance both in the Japanese context and interna- challenges in soil management at the urban fringe due tionally. The plan Urban Development in Tokyo has to the pressure of the new developments. There are the ambition of ‘‘creating an attractive and prosperous three main proposed measures to mitigate the identi- environmentally-leading city that will serve as a fied threats: (1) identification of critical areas for water model for the world’’ (Tokyo Metropolitan Govern- management; (2) promotion of agricultural activities; ment 2011). The focus throughout the document is, and (3) creation of more management plans. Even however, mostly on urban projects, such as detailing though the Brasılia Master Plan is very extensive on new urban development projects per district, and less the appraisal and proposed measures the plan com- on the environmental properties. In particular, soil is pletely lacks a monitoring strategy or indicators to rarely addressed either directly or indirectly (soil- assess the performance or implementation of the plan. related functions), as the main focus of the plan is on the already highly developed districts. 123 Landscape Ecol London but integrate different strategies from the different stakeholders. Such an effort leads to a document with London is one of the biggest (around 8.6 million ambitious, overarching goals and only few concrete people) and most influential cities in Europe. The proposed measures. London Plan (Greater London Authority 2016)isa The report does not have a clear separation between detailed document that aims to be a reference in the appraisal, plan or monitoring sections due to its sustainable development goals for cities worldwide. overarching strategic aim. There is a clear description The main goal of the document is to transform London of the priority visions for the future (until 2040) and into a ‘‘world leader’’ city with effective measures to some information on the current and past issues, but improve the environment locally and globally. Specif- concrete measures to implement or to monitor the ically, the plan aims to tackle climate change issues by performance of the plan are lacking. One of the reducing pollution, developing a low carbon economy reasons could be that the plan needs to be a working and reducing the consumption and effective usage of document for multiple stakeholders, such as institu- natural resources. Despite ambitious goals regarding tions and municipalities. As for soil-related issues, it the effective usage of natural resources, there are very addresses the need to support more climate resilient few direct references to soil in the document, even strategies by protecting valuable areas (reference is questioning if soil is seen by the authors of the plan as made to green and blue quality networks). The most a relevant natural resource. concrete measure in the document is the need to The London Plan is a strategic document that increase the water storage capacity of the peat areas in focuses mainly on the proposed measures, since it only the area north of Amsterdam. provides general statements about the current situation and does not specify many details on any of the natural Boston resources, including soil. However, both the proposed measures and monitoring indicators are addressed in The Metropolitan Area Planning Council of Boston is the plan. There is a focus on measures to mitigate the main responsible for the regional planning strat- climate change, such as floods and urban heating. egy, the ‘‘MetroFuture: Making a Greater Boston Nevertheless, there is also concern with losses of open Region’’ (Reardon 2008). The MetroFuture is an land areas and agricultural activities. The London Plan extensive strategic plan that is composed of two main proposes 24 indicators for all subjects. These indica- documents: ‘‘MetroFuture: goals and objectives’’ and tors do not have, however, concrete measure specifi- ‘‘Metrofuture implementation strategies’’; making it cations and rather describe the individual target for the most extensive plan of the seven case studies. The each indicator. In the plan it is proposed indicators to plan’s vision was built on the inclusion of multiple assess the rate of loss of unsealed soils to new institutional and community stakeholder’s perspec- developments and to improve the water infrastructure tives and presents 65 specific goals for the metropoli- in the city. tan area. Overall, the main target of the document is to achieve a sustainable growth of the region by targeting Amsterdam a high quality of life for the community. Unsealed soil is addressed as a relevant part of the region to be The metropolitan region of Amsterdam with about 2.2 protected from conversion to urban developments. million people is one of the biggest and more dynamic The ‘‘MetroFuture implementation strategies’’ doc- urban areas in The Netherlands and in the Randstad ument lists 13 different strategies to implement the region. The Strategic Vision for Amsterdam 2040 plan and has several detailed goals and measures. Out (Metropoolregio Amsterdam 2008) is a plan devel- of the 13 strategies, there are two more relevant from oped in collaboration with multiple stakeholders the environmental perspective: (1) Protect Natural within the region (e.g. municipalities and water Landscape and (2) Conserve Natural Resources. The authorities) and aims to provide strategic goals for first strategy is mostly focused on planning strategies, the future of the metropolitan area. Due to the scope but also has some very specific soil-related measures. and effort of multiple and different stakeholders the For instance, a ‘‘No Net Loss’’ policy is proposed, plan aims to support not only urban planning strategies forcing institutions that convert land with high value 123 Landscape Ecol for agriculture or nature to other urban uses, to protect plans to increase local food production, no direct link at least another area of the same dimension and value. between soil functions and ‘‘food’’ is established. The second strategy focuses on water-related issues Moreover, there is a difference in presence in refer- and energy. For example, amendments to soil with ences to soil functions between sections, i.e., while organic content are addressed here as vital to reduce there are references to soil functions in the goals and the need of irrigation on agricultural fields. appraisal sections, in the monitoring section there are few concrete actions regarding soil. This seems to The role of soils in the urban plans assessed indicate that there is a lack of capacity to propose or implement indicators that can be integrated into Key findings of the case studies analysed are summa- monitoring (for example, even though the London rized in Table 3 below. For each city we appraised if plan suggests indicators, these are measured by spatial and to what extent soils are included in urban net losses for new developments). Being able to assess planning. The qualitative method followed to assess soil-related functions requires monitoring systems the role of soil focused mainly on identifying soil- with indicators providing information on, and ideally related functions and strategies in the urban plans and quantifying, the contributions of soils to sustainable reports of the case studies. The analysis showed in urban development. general a weak presence of soil in documents guiding future sustainable strategies for leading cities in the world. The strategic nature of some of these urban The role of ecosystem services in soil knowledge- planning documents leads to overarching strategies transfer that lack concrete measures for natural resources, in particular for soil-related functions, with the exception Brief context on soil-related ES of Boston. Another issue identified is the lack of monitoring indicators (except for London) to assess Biodiversity and environmental conservation aware- the performance of the implementation of the plan and ness have been continually evolving and increasing in the impact on soil. importance amongst decision-makers and politicians A comparison between the results in Fig. 1 and (Egoh et al. 2007). In parallel, ES have been frequently Table 3, i.e. the text mining and the qualitative used to assess and measure environmental perfor- assessment of the plans, reveals a discrepancy between mances (Chan et al. 2006; Scarlett and Boyd 2015). ES concepts, functions and focus of the plans. While most has become a mainstreamed concept with wide plans frequently used words such as ‘‘food’’, ‘‘land’’ practical application, guided by four main frame- and ‘‘water’’, soil functions are not addressed equally works: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millen- in the plans. Even though there are some goals in the nium Ecosystem Assessment 2003), TEEB(Kumar Table 3 Summary of references in the urban plans to soil-related functions, by section (goals, appraisal, plan, monitoring and indicators) Plan Goals Appraisal Plan Monitoring Monitoring indicators Sydney ?? ? ? - Brasılia ??? ?? –– London - – ?? ? Cape Town ?? ? - ?? Tokyo ? – - –– Amsterdam ?- ? –– Boston ?? ?? ?? ?? ? (??) Soil is directly mentioned and plays a clear role, (?) There are indirect references to soil or soil-related functions, definitions can be not very clear, (-) There are few indirect references to soil or soil-related functions and definitions are not very clear, (–) Soil is not mentioned in the text 123 Landscape Ecol 2010), CICES (Haines-Young and Potschin 2012) and surroundings (e.g. through the water cycle), indepen- IPBES (D´ ıaz et al. 2015). For example, the MA has put dently of the scale of analysis. Instead, ES frameworks together the contributions of more than 1360 world- tend to consider nature (or its natural resources) as wide experts with the purpose to set an integrated isolated ecosystems or a mosaic of different framework to assess ecosystem change. The general ecosystems. framework presented by the MA proposed the arrangement of the ES in four different categories: Soil-related ES in an urban context (1) support; (2) provision; (3) regulating and (4) cultural. However, the different scope of each frame- Urban expansion and changes in land use not only alter works as led to a long search for a common ground in landscape structures but also affect the ecosystems in the approaches (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Maes et al. these landscapes and their ability to provide benefits to 2016). humans (Niemela ¨ et al. 2010). As seen in the previous Attention to soil-related ES started in an agricul- section, soil is mostly not included or understood in tural context where soil quality is normally addressed urban planning regarding its capacity to provide or in terms of soil productivity (e.g. capacity to support support essential services. On the other hand, in the high quantity or quality of crops). Thus, necessarily, past years there have been many advances in the study soil quality assessment requires a methodology that of ES in the soil scientific community, in particular as a tool to transfer knowledge to practice and commu- not only considers soil properties per se but also an understanding of the soil’s functions (Carter et al. nicate with different stakeholders. In this section, we 1997). One of the most widely used definitions of soil give an overview of soil-related ES examples with quality that is still in use is ‘‘the capacity of a soil to practical application, as found in literature, with the function, within ecosystem and land use boundaries, to purpose of taking stock of possible strengths and sustain productivity, maintain environmental quality, weaknesses for their use in an urban context. and promote plant and animal health’’ (Doran and The development in soil science towards a better Parkin 1994). Even though many definitions have been transfer of knowledge and the importance of soils proposed the concept of soil quality has been through the use of ES is seen in the development of stable and mostly confined to agricultural functions many frameworks proposed over the last years (Lima et al. 2013). Even though soils play a key role in (Dominati et al. 2010; Robinson et al. 2013;Jo ´ nsson supporting, provisioning and regulating food provi- and Davı ´ðsdo ´ ttir 2016; Schwilch et al. 2016). The sion, soils provide other services that are relevant to framework proposed by Schwilch et al. (2016) builds society, such as the capacity to store water. However, on already existing frameworks for soil-related ES and such multitude of services provided by soils are not aims at providing a more suitable platform for fully developed in the main ES frameworks (Dominati stakeholders by defining a consistent and accessible et al. 2010). terminology. This framework was used in this article Baveye et al. (2016) extensively reviewed the to collect case studies of soil-related ES (Table 4), history of soil-related ES and argue that the focus on with the purpose of assessing the body of research soil services and multi-functionality amongst the addressing soil-related ES, the diversity of indicators scientific community emerged earlier than the interest and relevance to urban planning. In compiling case in ES, with some articles published as early as the study applications of soil-related ES assessments, we 1960s. Soil scientists have indeed tried to better prioritised those studies that have either a spatial understand the role of the various functions and application and/or make a quantification of the ES. We characteristics of soils, as well as the interrelationships distributed the case studies across the three main between the different factors. Baveye et al. (2016) also services provided by soils proposed in the framework discuss that major scepticism to the use of the concept and tried to identify examples for all the proposed soil- of ES by soil scientists came from the difficulty in related ES. combining soil and ecosystem concepts, mainly due to Table 4 shows a clear concentration of most of the the interdependence of soil functions (Swinton et al. case studies on particular ES categories. The strong 2007). In the frameworks applied to the soil functions, link between soil and agricultural productivity studies soil is seen as a complex system that interacts with its is evident from the high number of case studies that 123 Landscape Ecol Table 4 Examples of soil ecosystem services case studies with urban focus published since 2008 for the soil-related ES categories Category Ecosystem services Scope Indicator Units References Provisioning Biomass production Valuing post-mining Agricultural Ha Larondelle and landscapes productivity Haase (2012) Valuing post-mining Net primary g/m /a Larondelle and landscapes production Haase (2012) Knowledge transfer Agricultural %/km Bateman et al. production (2013) Landscape services Crop production Yield potential index Ungaro et al. mapping (2014) Land use transitions Food, feed and MJ/ha Mouchet and in Europe fibre Lavorel (2012) -1 -1 Decision making Food kg ha year Ghaley et al. support (2014) -1 -1 Decision making Fodder kg ha year Ghaley et al. support (2014) -1 -1 Economic valuation Food US $ ha year Sandhu et al. of E.S. (2008) Water production Valuing post-mining Groundwater ft /s Larondelle and landscapes recharge Haase (2012) Landscape services Water supply and %/ha Ungaro et al. mapping regulation (2014) Supply of raw Valuing post-mining Forest Ha Larondelle and materials landscapes productivity Haase (2012) 3 2 Land use transitions Raw material m /km fforestry/year Mouchet and in Europe Lavorel (2012) -1 -1 Decision making Wood chips kg ha year Ghaley et al. support (2014) -1 -1 Decision making Wood kg ha year Ghaley et al. support (2014) -1 -1 Economic valuation Raw materials US $ ha year Sandhu et al. of E.S. (2008) -1 -1 Physical base Economic valuation Soil formation US $ ha year Sandhu et al. of E.S. (2008) Regulating and Air quality N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. maintenance regulation Waste treatment Land use transitions Water purification Ton of nitrogen Mouchet and in Europe removed/km/year Lavorel (2012) Water regulation Valuing post-mining Settlements in ha Larondelle and and retention landscapes floodplains Haase (2012) Supply and demand Flood Regulation Supply Index Stu ¨ rck et al. (2014) of E.S. Supply (STREAM model) Supply and demand Flood regulation Demand Index (DSM Stu ¨ rck et al. (2014) of E.S. demand model) Decision making Water holding mm Ghaley et al. support capacity (2014) -1 -1 Economic valuation Hydrological flow US $ ha year Sandhu et al. of E.S. (2008) 123 Landscape Ecol Table 4 continued Category Ecosystem services Scope Indicator Units References Climate Regulation Valuing post- Above-ground carbon MgC/ha Larondelle and mining landscapes storage Haase (2012) Valuing post- Potential ET class Larondelle and mining landscapes evapotranspiration Haase (2012) Decision making Greenhouse gases Ton/km Bateman et al. support (2013) Land Use Climate regulation C/Km /year Mouchet and Transitions in Lavorel (2012) Europe -1 -1 Decision making Carbon sequestration Ton ha year Ghaley et al. (2014) support Economic valuation Carbon accumulation US $ Sandhu et al. (2008) -1 -1 of E.S. ha year -1 -1 Maintenance of Soil Fertility Decision making Nitrogen fixation Kg ha year Ghaley et al. (2014) support Economic valuation Soil fertility US $ Sandhu et al. (2008) -1 -1 of E.S. ha year Economic valuation Nitrogen fixation US $ Sandhu et al. (2008) -1 -1 of E.S. ha year Economic valuation Mineralization of US $ Sandhu et al. (2008) -1 -1 of E.S. plant nutrients ha year -1 -1 Erosion control Decision making Erosion prevention Ton ha year Ghaley et al. (2014) support Pollination Historical land use Pollination—potential m Lautenbach et al. change nesting sites (2011) Economic valuation Pollination US $ Sandhu et al. (2008) -1 -1 of E.S. ha year Biological control Environmental Pesticide leaching risk Risk Index Lindahl and indicator Bockstaller (2012) Economic valuation Biological control of US $ Sandhu et al. (2008) -1 -1 of E.S. pests ha year Lifecycle maintenance Habitat Valuing post- Shore development m/ha Larondelle and mining landscapes Haase (2012) Decision making Wild bird-species Number/km Bateman et al. support diversity (2013) Landscape services Habitat for species %/ha Ungaro et al. (2014) mapping -2 Gene pool protection Decision making Earthworm count No m Ghaley et al. (2014) support Cultural Enabling of spiritual and Valuing post- Recreational areas Number Larondelle and aesthetical experiences mining landscapes Haase (2012) Decision making Recreation Number/km Bateman et al. support (2013) Land use transitions Leisure Recreation Mouchet and in Europe potential Index Lavorel (2012) Economic valuation Aesthetics US $ Sandhu et al. (2008) -1 -1 of E.S. ha year 123 Landscape Ecol Table 4 continued Category Ecosystem services Scope Indicator Units References Historical land use change Outdoor m Lautenbach et al. recreation (2011) Provision of inspiration Landscape services Visual Number/ Ungaro et al. (2014) mapping appreciation ha Representation of cultural N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. heritage include an assessment of provisioning soil-related ES, methods can most likely be justified by the scope of such as biomass production (Sandhu et al. 2008; each study, but point to difficulties in comparing and Lautenbach et al. 2011; Larondelle and Haase 2012; aggregating results across studies. Lastly, access to Mouchet and Lavorel 2012; Bateman et al. 2013; data seems to be a limitation for the quantification of Ghaley et al. 2014; Ungaro et al. 2014) or supply of some services, such as cultural services. Table 4 raw materials (Sandhu et al. 2008; Larondelle and suggests that the development of some indicators seem Haase 2012; Mouchet and Lavorel 2012; Ghaley et al. to be limited by the availability of data, which can 2014). Besides the soil-related provisioning services, derive in a poor quantification of the ES. there is an already broad coverage of other ES. Nonetheless, to the best of our knowledge some soil- related ES remain fairly unexplored, such as lifecycle Challenges and opportunities to integrate soil maintenance or representation of cultural heritage. into urban planning Cultural ES supported by soils have high relevance to urban planning due to its implications for urban In line with increased high-level attention to sustain- residents’ quality of life. One example of the contri- able development, the relevance of soil is growing bution of soil to cultural ES are burial grounds, which more and more in the agenda of many urban planning hold great cultural meaning and value to the local initiatives. One of the EU initiatives that has enhanced population. this interest is the European Green Capital Award The assessment and distribution of the literature in (European Commission 2017). Out of the 12 key the framework proposed by Schwilch et al. (2016) indicators appraised for the award, 6 can be directly helped identify some issues with actual approaches of related with soil: climate change, green urban areas soil-related ES case studies. Firstly, most of the case incorporating sustainable land use, nature and biodi- studies are focused on production and do not prioritize versity, water management, waste water management other relevant services that could be used by other and integrated environmental management. There- stakeholders, such as urban planners or city decision- fore, urban planning needs to become more engaged makers. Secondly, even though there are soil-related with soils because sustainable development of cities ES frameworks, they primarily serve to systematically also depends on sustainable use of soil resources. This account for multiple ES without offering guidance on calls for a closer look at the barriers and steps that need how to link different indicators (as seen, for example, to be taken in order to promote the integration of soil in Table 4 with multiple quantification methods for into urban planning. similar ES). Such inconsistencies can be a barrier for Our analysis shows that soil is evidently still not the application of the knowledge by other stakehold- widely understood or taken into consideration in ers, such as urban planners or decision-makers. recent urban plans, even for globally leading cities. On Thirdly, the indicators and the valuation methods the other hand, soil scientists have been making an chosen across all soil-related ES assessed are very effort to provide information and tools that can different, even within the same category, e.g., the improve the transfer of knowledge about the functions differences in units between similar indicators, such as soils provide to a multitude of new stakeholders. biomass production. Differences in quantification However, the major focus on specific functions, 123 Landscape Ecol notably biomass production, shows that there are still monitoring and actions sections in the plans reviewed. many steps to be taken in providing soil information Defining a common ground is absolutely necessary, that covers a wider spectrum of soil-related ES tailored for example through establishing indicator systems to an urban context, in particular cultural and regulat- that transcend technical and discipline-specific mean- ing services. ings. The accessibility and use of the information The ES concept holds significant relevance as an provided through soil-related ES should also be taken approach to better integrate soil information into urban in consideration in future studies. The success of such planning. Acknowledgement of the importance of ES integration will depend on data availability. Therefore, in international policy has triggered an increasing we expect that a combination of data-driven interest in ES globally. There is nonetheless a need to approaches and operationalisation of the ES concept frame soil-related ES in broader concepts, such as the can provide a clear roadmap to integrate urban SDGs, to increase the recognition of the importance of planning and soil science. soil in other sectors besides agriculture. Such approaches would benefit from a proposal of indica- tors that are clear on the benefits for the community Conclusion and its quality of life. Ongoing efforts, e.g. by the IPBES, to make ES indicators more relevant to policy In this paper, we identified the importance and ´ opportunities to integrate soil-related ES into urban and planning (Dıaz et al. 2018) may spur important progress. In particular, we recommend that new urban planning practices and approaches. From this review, plans should include indicators that allow to assess and the following conclusions and recommendations are quantify the soil quality and the multitude of benefits drawn: provided by urban soils. Although the analysed urban plans focus on deliv- ES could also easily be used to monitor develop- ering sustainable strategies, and regardless of whether ments in plans and, at the same time, strengthen the plans propose any concrete or strategic measures, awareness about soils within the urban planning most plans do not address soil directly as a critical community. In planning sustainable urban develop- natural resource in itself. Instead, they mostly identify ment there is a need to be able to assess trade-offs and several soil functions as important. synergies between environment and development. ES Most of the plans identified monitoring and the use indicators can be integrated in scenario analyses, for of environmental indicators as a critical step in example to make ex-ante assessments of plans inves- assessing the performance of the implementation of tigating if nature-based solutions (Kabisch et al. 2016) the plan. However, most plans did not present concrete are cheaper than engineering solutions. and measurable indicators. Nevertheless, the integra- Efforts of developing awareness about soil-related tion of such soil-related ES could be directly linked ES and functions are essential to promote the inclusion with monitoring indicators and, therefore, integrated of such factors into urban planning. It is important to in the plans measures. The environmental indicators do so not only through isolated scientific efforts but by used and developed in recent and on-going studies involving and working together with relevant stake- presented in this paper offer ample opportunities for holders. High level goals (such as SDG’s) are integration in these plans. frequently mentioned in the urban plans. This hierar- A wide range of soil-related ES studies was chical embedding offers an opportunity for cities to identified. Most of the soil-related ES case studies learn from each other. focus on provisioning services and revealed to be little Integrating ES in urban planning may provide a developed on other functions provided by soils. The framework for bridging the different fields of exper- soil-related ES indicators identified require different tise, and may even drive a transformation beyond methods to quantify the ES. Such multitude of current fragmentary technical and disciplinary knowl- methods can represent barriers to the ease of applica- edge. The analysis performed allowed to unveil a lack tion for users without advanced technical knowledge of knowledge on how to integrate and operationalize or limited access to specific data, equipment or soil-related ES into planning practices. Such is evident techniques. An improvement of data collection from the lack of soil-related references in the 123 Landscape Ecol Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The methods suitable to urban areas also seems to be need for standardized environmental accounting units. critical to aid the uptake of most soil-related ES. Ecol Econ 63(2–3):616–626 The need for a greater and widespread awareness of Campbell S (1996) Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: the soil functions and services in urban planning is urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. J Am Plan Assoc 62(3):296–312 evident. To achieve this, we think that there are several Carter MR, Gregorich EG, Anderson DW, Doran JW, Janzen requirements. Further efforts are required to raise HH, Pierce FJ (1997) Concepts of soil quality and their awareness of the importance of soil in an urban significance. In: Carter MR, Gregorich EG (eds) Devel- context, especially amongst urban planners and local opments in soil science soil quality for crop production and ecosystem health. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–19 decision-makers. Integration of soil-related ES indi- Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily cators in decision-support systems would help to show GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. the importance of soil functions for sustainable PLoS Biol 4(11):e379 development in an urban context. On the other hand, City of Cape Town (2012) Cape Town spatial development framework—staturory report. Cape Town, South Africa there is also a need to better consider the demand for Clark B (2003) Ebenezer Howard and the marriage of town and soil-related ES indicators from the planning perspec- country: an introduction to Howard’s Garden cities of to- tive. In particular, soil-related ES indicators in urban morrow (Selections). Organ Environ 16(1):87–97 areas that focus on lifecycle maintenance and cultural ´ Dıaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Baldi A, Bartuska A, benefits of soil to society. This could be improved by Baste IA, Bilgin A, Brondizio E, Chan KMA, Figueroa VE, more involvement of different stakeholders. Duraiappah A, Fischer M, Hill R, Koetz T, Leadley P, Lyver P, Mace GM, Martin-Lopez B, Okumura M, Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Rens Pacheco D, Pascual U, Perez ES, Reyers B, Roth E, Saito Masselink, Coleen Carranza, Miao Yu, Demie Moore, Karrar O, Scholes RJ, Sharma N, Tallis H, Thaman R, Watson R, Mahdi, Beatriz Ramirez Correal, Selamawit Amare and Bram te Yahara T, Hamid ZA, Akosim C, Al-Hafedh Y, Allah- Brake for their comments and scientific input to the article. The verdiyev R, Amankwah E, Asah ST, Asfaw Z, Bartus G, authors are also grateful for the contribution of the reviewers Brooks LA, Caillaux J, Dalle G, Darnaedi D, Driver A, that helped improve this manuscript. Erpul G, Escobar-Eyzaguirre P, Failler P, Fouda AMM, Fu B, Gundimeda H, Hashimoto S, Homer F, Lavorel S, Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Lichtenstein G, Mala WA, Mandivenyi W, Matczak P, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// Mbizvo C, Mehrdadi M, Metzger JP, Mikissa JB, Moller H, creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unre- Mooney HA, Mumby P, Nagendra H, Nesshover C, Oteng- stricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, Yeboah AA, Pataki G, Roue ´ M, Rubis J, Schultz M, Smith provided you give appropriate credit to the original P, Sumaila R, Takeuchi K, Thomas S, Verma M, Yeo- author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- Chang Y, Zlatanova D (2015) The IPBES conceptual mons license, and indicate if changes were made. framework—connecting nature and people. Open Issue 14:1–16 Dı ´az S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martı ´n-Lo ´ pez B, Watson RT, Molna ´r Z, Hill R, Chan KMA, Baste IA, Brauman KA, Polasky S, Church A, Lonsdale M, Larigauderie A, Lead- References ley PW, van Oudenhoven APE, van der Plaat F, Schro ¨ ter M, Lavorel S, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bukvareva E, Artmann M (2014) Institutional efficiency of urban soil sealing Davies K, Demissew S, Erpul G, Failler P, Guerra CA, management—from raising awareness to better imple- Hewitt CL, Keune H, Lindley S, Shirayama Y (2018) mentation of sustainable development in Germany. Landsc Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science Urban Plan 131:83–95 359(6373):270 Bateman IJ, Harwood AR, Mace GM, Watson RT, Abson DJ, Dominati E, Patterson M, Mackay A (2010) A framework for Andrews B, Binner A, Crowe A, Day BH, Dugdale S, Fezzi classifying and quantifying the natural capital and C, Foden J, Hadley D, Haines-Young R, Hulme M, Kon- ecosystem services of soils. Ecol Econ 69(9):1858–1868 toleon A, Lovett AA, Munday P, Pascual U, Paterson J, Doran JW, Parkin TB (1994) Defining and assessing soil quality. Perino G, Sen A, Siriwardena G, van Soest D, Termansen In: Doran JW, Coleman DC, Bezdicek DF, Stewart BA M (2013) Bringing ecosystem services into economic (eds) Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment. decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science SSSA Special Publication. Soil Science Society of Amer- 341(6141):45 ica and American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 1–21 Baveye PC, Baveye J, Gowdy J (2016) Soil ‘‘ecosystem’’ ser- Egoh B, Rouget M, Reyers B, Knight AT, Cowling RM, van vices and natural capital: critical appraisal of research on Jaarsveld AS, Welz A (2007) Integrating ecosystem ser- uncertain ground. Front Environ Sci 4:41 vices into conservation assessments: a review. Sustain Cost-Benefit Anal 63(4):714–721 123 Landscape Ecol European Commission (2017) Technical Assessment Report: Kumar P (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: European Green Capital Award. http://ec.europa.eu/ ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London environment/europeangreencapital/wp-content/uploads/ and Washington 2013/02/EGCA_Technical_Assessment_Synopsis_ Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Report_Award_Cycle_2019.pdf. Accessed May 2017 Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary Friedmann J (1998) Planning theory revisited. Eur Plan Stud research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and 6(3):245–253 challenges. Sustain Sci 7(1):25–43 Gardi C, Panagos P, van Liedekerke M, Bosco C, de Brogniez D Larondelle N, Haase D (2012) Valuing post-mining landscapes (2014) Land take and food security: assessment of land using an ecosystem services approach—an example from take on the agricultural production in Europe. J Environ Germany. Ecol Indic 18:567–574 Plan Manag 58(5):898–912 Lauf S, Haase D, Kleinschmit B (2016) The effects of growth, Ghaley BB, Vesterdal L, Porter JR (2014) Quantification and shrinkage, population aging and preference shifts on urban valuation of ecosystem services in diverse production development—A spatial scenario analysis of Berlin, Ger- systems for informed decision-making. Environ Sci Policy many. Land Use Policy 52:240–254 39:139–149 Lautenbach S, Kugel C, Lausch A, Seppelt R (2011) Analysis of Go ´ mez-Baggethun E, Barton DN (2013) Classifying and valu- historic changes in regional ecosystem service provision- ing ecosystem services for urban planning. Sustain Urban ing using land use data. Ecol Indic 11(2):676–687 86:235–245 Lima A, Brussaard L, Totola MR, Hoogmoed WB, de Goede R Governo do distrito Federal (2009) Plano Diretor de Ordena- (2013) A functional evaluation of three indicator sets for mento Territorial do Distrito Federal: Documento Tecnico, assessing soil quality. Appl Soil Ecol 64:194–200 Brasılia Lindahl AM, Bockstaller C (2012) An indicator of pesticide Greater London Authority (2016) The London Plan: The Spatial leaching risk to groundwater. Ecol Indic 23:95–108 Development Strategy for London Consolidated with Maes J, Liquete C, Teller A, Erhard M, Paracchini ML, Barredo alterations since 2011, London JI, Grizzetti B, Cardoso A, Somma F, Petersen J-E, Meiner Guerry AD, Polasky S, Lubchenco J, Chaplin-Kramer R, Daily A, Gelabert ER, Zal N, Kristensen P, Bastrup-Birk A, Biala GC, Griffin R, Ruckelshaus M, Bateman IJ, Duraiappah A, K, Piroddi C, Egoh B, Degeorges P, Fiorina C, Santos- ´ ˇ ˇ Elmqvist T, Feldman MW, Folke C, Hoekstra J, Kareiva Martın F, Narusevicius V, Verboven J, Pereira HM, PM, Keeler BL, Li S, McKenzie E, Ouyang Z, Reyers B, Bengtsson J, Gocheva K, Marta-Pedroso C, Sna ¨ll T, Ricketts TH, Rockstro ¨ m J, Tallis H, Vira B (2015) Natural Estreguil C, San-Miguel-Ayanz J, Pe ´rez-Soba M, Gre ˆt- capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from Regamey A, Lillebø AI, Malak DA, Conde ´ S, Moen J, promise to practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci Czu ´ cz B, Drakou EG, Zulian G, Lavalle C (2016) An 112(24):7348–7355 indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in Haase D, Larondelle N, Andersson E, Artmann M, Borgstro ¨mS, support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosyst Breuste J, Gomez-Baggethun E, Gren A, Hamstead Z, Serv 17:14–23 Hansen R, Kabisch N, Kremer P, Langemeyer J, Rall EL, McGranahan G, Balk D, Anderson B (2007) The rising tide: McPhearson T, Pauleit S, Qureshi S, Schwarz N, Voigt A, assessing the risks of climate change and human settle- Wurster D, Elmqvist T (2014) A quantitative review of ments in low elevation coastal zones. Environ Urban urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, 19(1):17–37 and implementation. Ambio 43(4):413–433 McGrane SJ (2016) Impacts of urbanisation on hydrological and Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2012) Common International water quality dynamics, and urban water management: a Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consulta- review. Hydrol Sci J 61(13):2295–2311 tion on Version 4 Metropoolregio Amsterdam (2008) Metropoolregio Amster- IBGE (2016) Estimativas da populac ¸a ˜o residente no Brasil e dam—Ontwikkelingsbeeld Noordvleugel 2040, unidades da Federac ¸a ˜o com data de refere ˆncia em 1 de Amsterdam Julho de 2016. ftp://ftp.ibge.gov.br/Estimativas_de_Popu- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and lacao/Estimativas_2016/estimativa_2016_TCU.pdf. human well-being: a framework for assessment. Millen- Accessed Nov 2016 nium Ecosystem Assessment, Washington DC ´ ´ ´ Jonsson JOG, Davıðsdottir B (2016) Classification and valua- Mol G, Keesstra S (2012) Soil science in a changing world. Terr tion of soil ecosystem services. Agric Syst 145:24–38 Syst 4(5):473–477 Kabisch N, Frantzeskaki N, Pauleit S, Naumann S, Davis M, Morel JL, Chenu C, Lorenz K (2015) Ecosystem services pro- Artmann M, Haase D, Knapp S, Korn H, Stadler J, Zaun- vided by soils of urban, industrial, traffic, mining, and berger K, Bonn A (2016) Nature-based solutions to climate military areas (SUITMAs). J Soils Sediments change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspec- 15(8):1659–1666 tives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and oppor- Mouchet M, Lavorel S (2012) Volante—visions of land use tunities for action. Ecol Soc 21(2):39 transitions in Europe: D8.1. A framework for trade-off Keesstra SD, Bouma J, Wallinga J, Tittonell P, Smith P, Cerda ` analysis of ecosystem service indicators A, Montanarella L, Quinton JN, Pachepsky Y, van der Niemela ¨ J, Saarela S-R, So ¨ derman T, Kopperoinen L, Yli- Putten WH, Bardgett RD, Moolenaar S, Mol G, Jansen B, Pelkonen V, Va ¨re S, Kotze DJ (2010) Using the ecosystem Fresco LO (2016) The significance of soils and soil science services approach for better planning and conservation of towards realization of the United Nations Sustainable urban green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodivers Con- Development Goals. SOIL 2(2):111–128 serv 19(11):3225–3243 123 Landscape Ecol RapidMiner (2016) RapidMiner. http://www.rapidminer.com Seto KC, Fragkias M, Guneralp B, Reilly MK (2011) A meta- Reardon T (2008) MetroFuture: making a greater boster region: analysis of global urban land expansion. PLoS ONE an initiative of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, 6(8):e23777 Boston Simmonds R, Hack G (eds) (2000) Global city regions: their Robinson DA, Hockley N, Cooper DM, Emmett BA, Keith AM, emerging forms. Spon Press, London Lebron I, Reynolds B, Tipping E, Tye AM, Watts CW, Stu ¨ rck J, Poortinga A, Verburg PH (2014) Mapping ecosystem Whalley WR, Black H, Warren GP, Robinson JS (2013) services: the supply and demand of flood regulation ser- Natural capital and ecosystem services, developing an vices in Europe. Ecol Indic 38:198–211 appropriate soils framework as a basis for valuation. Soil Sun Di, Yang H, Guan D, Yang M, Wu J, Yuan F, Jin C, Wang Biol Biochem 57:1023–1033 A, Zhang Y (2018) The effects of land use change on soil Sandhu HS, Wratten SD, Cullen R, Case B (2008) The future of infiltration capacity in China: a meta-analysis. Sci Total farming: the value of ecosystem services in conventional Environ 626:1394–1401 and organic arable land. An experimental approach. Ecol Swinton SM, Lupi F, Robertson GP, Hamilton SK (2007) Econ 64(4):835–848 Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricul- Savery N, de Chastel L (2009) The importance and value of tural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecosyst Serv Agric urban and regional planning. Aust Plan 46(3):6–9 64(2):245–252 Scarlett L, Boyd J (2015) Ecosystem services and resource Tokyo Metropolitan Government (2011) Urban development in management: institutional issues, challenges, and oppor- Tokyo. Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Tokyo tunities in the public sector. Ecol Econ 115:3–10 Ungaro F, Zasada I, Piorr A (2014) Mapping landscape services, Schwilch G, Bernet L, Fleskens L, Giannakis E, Leventon J, spatial synergies and trade-offs. A case study using vari- Maran ˜ on T, Mills J, Short C, Stolte J, van Delden H, ogram models and geostatistical simulations in an agrarian Verzandvoort S (2016) Operationalizing ecosystem ser- landscape in North-East Germany. Ecol Indic 46:367–378 vices for the mitigation of soil threats: a proposed frame- United Nations (2014) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 work. Ecol Indic 67:586–597 Revision Scott AJ (2001) Global city-regions: trends, theory, policy/ van Haren N, van Boxtel K (2017) Grounding Sustainability: edited by Allen J. Scott. Oxford University Press, Oxford land, soils and the sustainable development goals. Briefing ¨ ¨ Setala H, Bardgett RD, Birkhofer K, Brady M, Byrne L, de Paper Both Ends, Amsterdam Ruiter PC, de Vries FT, Gardi C, Hedlund K, Hemerik L, Wilson E (2006) Adapting to climate change at the local level: Hotes S, Liiri M, Mortimer SR, Pavao-Zuckerman M, the spatial planning response. Local Environ Pouyat R, Tsiafouli M, van der Putten WH (2014) Urban 11(6):609–625 and agricultural soils: conflicts and trade-offs in the opti- mization of ecosystem services. Urban Ecosyst 17(1):239–253 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Landscape Ecology Springer Journals

Incorporating soil ecosystem services into urban planning: status, challenges and opportunities

Free
16 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/incorporating-soil-ecosystem-services-into-urban-planning-status-FBjkS1FW67
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by The Author(s)
Subject
Life Sciences; Landscape Ecology; Ecology; Nature Conservation; Landscape/Regional and Urban Planning; Sustainable Development; Environmental Management
ISSN
0921-2973
eISSN
1572-9761
D.O.I.
10.1007/s10980-018-0652-x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Landscape Ecol https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0652-x RESEARCH AR TIC L E Incorporating soil ecosystem services into urban planning: status, challenges and opportunities . . . Ricardo Teixeira da Silva Luuk Fleskens Hedwig van Delden Martine van der Ploeg Received: 19 June 2017 / Accepted: 17 May 2018 The Author(s) 2018 Abstract studies in the past decade that focus on soil-related Context Traditionally soils have not received much ecosystem services in urban context. attention in urban planning. For this, tools are needed Results The results show an overall weak attention that can both be understood both by soil scientists and to soil and soil-related ecosystem services in the urban planners. implementation and monitoring phases of urban plans. Purpose The purpose of this paper is to enhance the The majority of soil science case studies uses a role of soil knowledge in urban planning practice, haphazard approach to measure ecosystem service through the following objectives: (1) identifying the indicators which may not capture the ecosystem role soil plays in recent urban plans; (2) analysing the services appropriately and hence lack relevance for ecosystem services and indicators used in soil science urban planning. in an urban context; and (3) inferring the main Conclusions Even though the most urban plans challenges and opportunities to integrate soil into assessed recognize soil as a key resource, most of urban planning. them fail to integrate indicators to measure or monitor Methods Seven urban plans and reports of world soil-related functions. There is a need to develop soil- cities that include sustainability goals were analysed related ecosystem services that can be easily inte- using text-mining and qualitative analysis, with a grated and understood by other fields. critical view on the inclusion of soil-related concepts. Secondly, the contribution of soil science to urban Keywords Soil  Ecosystem services  Urban planning was assessed with an overview of case planning  Sustainable development  Integrated planning R. Teixeira da Silva (&)  L. Fleskens  M. van der Ploeg Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Introduction The Netherlands e-mail: ricardo.teixeiradasilva@wur.nl Cities are important economic, social and cultural H. van Delden hubs characterised by continuous population dynam- Research Institute for Knowledge Systems, Maastricht, ics that lead to a multitude of pressures and impacts The Netherlands that need to be managed by the local governments. These dynamics impact on land use change and, H. van Delden The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia 123 Landscape Ecol therefore, keep presenting challenges to urban plan- not fully integrated in planning strategies (Artmann ners and policy makers, in particular, the integration of 2014). environmental aspects with the new urban areas One area where integration of soil knowledge could (Hurlimann and March 2012). Such problems are help urban planning is in considering the role soils exacerbated by the United Nations estimation of an play in water cycle regulation, a function that gets lost increase in the global population of 2.5 billion people when soils are sealed (McGrane 2016). Exploiting this by 2050 (United Nations 2014). Even though 90% of role of soils will become increasingly important as the estimated increase in population is projected to be climate change exacerbates current issues, for exam- concentrated in Asia and Africa, recent studies show ple it is expected that precipitation events become that urban growth is likely to continue to be relevant more intense, resulting in floods in residential areas on all continents due to migration to bigger cities with large impacts (McGranahan et al. 2007). Such (Lauf et al. 2016). Considerable soil sealing is already prospects require a complex management of environ- taking place (Seto et al. 2011) leading to environmen- mental resources, hence magnifying the need for tal concerns such as loss of agricultural area (Gardi integrated planning. Spatial planning can be under- et al. 2014) or loss of infiltration areas (Di Sun et al. stood as the ‘‘decision-making process aimed at 2018). Many of these concerns are soil-related, and realizing economic, social cultural and environmental may affect achieving the Sustainable Development goals through the development of spatial visions, strategies and plans and the application of a set of Goals (SDG’s) in urban areas. The ecosystem services concept is gaining considerable traction for studying policy principles, tools, institution and participatory these human–environment interactions in an inte- mechanisms and regulatory procedures’’ (UN-Habitat grated way. 2015). Therefore, urban planning in this article refers Ecosystem services (ES) are understood as the to the planning of a spatial/geographical unit, with a benefits that humans obtain from the environment focus on the urban/city scale. (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003). Address- The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) of ing the SDG’s in urban areas necessitates a combina- the United Nations include three goals that have a tion of socio-economic and environmental monitoring strong focus on cities and functions of soil. The goal tools. ES can serve as the framework to achieve that ‘‘Sustainable cities and communities’’, ‘‘Responsible combination. Despite increasing interest to use the ES consumption and production’’ and ‘‘Life on earth’’ are concept as a means to transfer knowledge from linked to a better management of soil (van Haren and environmental sciences to decision makers and plan- van Boxtel 2017). While decision-making at national ners (Haase et al. 2014), only initial steps have been and international level is important to prioritize and set taken in studies/plans to do integrated assessments on sustainable development goals, the local and regional the links between urban functionalities and environ- scale are critical in achieving those targets. Regional mental aspects (Guerry et al. 2015). Examples of and urban planning needs to integrate sustainability urban environmental challenges that could benefit goals into local policies and priorities, and therefore from integrated ecosystem service assessments are requires not only strategic targets but also working water retention and regulation (Stu ¨ rck et al. 2014), with concrete local characteristics (Wilson 2006). climate regulation (Ghaley et al. 2014) or biomass Soil scientists have in the past decades promoted production (Larondelle and Haase 2012). Soils play a the critical importance of soil in solving global issues crucial role in providing these urban ecosystem such as food security or water scarcity (Mol and services (Seta ¨la ¨ et al. 2014; Morel et al. 2015). Soils Keesstra 2012). However, many more efforts still need are one of the hot topics in recent environmental to be made to better transfer the knowledge acquired scientific literature and, at the same time, one of the on other benefits of soils to society (Lang et al. 2012; most unknown natural resources for civil society Keesstra et al. 2016). There is already an extensive (Baveye et al. 2016; Keesstra et al. 2016). The knowledge on the properties and performance (in integration of soil knowledge into planning practice terms of productivity) of soil and more recently many is still a challenge, in particular in urban areas where advances have been made regarding the development sustainable soil management measures are often not or of soil ecosystem services frameworks (Dominati et al. 2010; Schwilch et al. 2016). However, there is a 123 Landscape Ecol limited knowledge transfer of soil-related ES into was a focus on urban functionality and less on urban planning practices (Go ´ mez-Baggethun and environmental aspects. An exception was the Garden Barton 2013). Cities movement, in the beginning of the 20th century, The main goal of this paper is to address where and which intended to focus more on integration of green how urban planning and soil science communities can areas and their wider benefits for urban residents. be complementary and learn from each other. In However, as a theory, it was not widely used amongst particular, this paper focuses on reviewing and the planning community (Clark 2003). assessing the status, challenges and opportunities of Since the last decade of the 20th century, urban soil in the urban context. It addresses the following planning suffered structural changes in the planning research questions: (1) What is the role of soil in urban theories that lead to disruptive changes (Friedmann planning?; (2) What is the state-of-the-art of ES in soil 1998). The United Nations Conference on Environ- knowledge transfer into urban planning?; and (3) ment and Development, in 1992, contributed to a What are the main challenges and opportunities to change on the world perspective on the importance of integrate soil into urban planning? The first research the environment and its natural resources (Campbell question is addressed by an in-depth review of the role 1996). This conference also had a big impact on of soil in seven case studies of recent sustainable urban planning, not only on the definition of sustainability planning strategies. This review seeks to identify in goals but also on the tools and processes used. Yet, even though there has been an increased focus on what contexts (if any) soils are mentioned in the plans. We deploy both quantitative data mining and quali- environmental performance indicators, there is still a tative assessment approaches to consider the relative paucity of knowledge about soils in an urban context importance of soil as an environmental resource in (Artmann 2014). In summary, planning is historically urban plans as well as better understand the context in targeted at the socio-economic functions cities provide which reference is made to soil. The second question is (Scott 2001). Due to this emphasis, environmental addressed with a focused literature review on soil- considerations received less attention. We hypothesize related ES frameworks and an inventory of case that this is one of the reasons that has led to a weak studies into soil-related ES assessment in urban areas. linkage with soil. Based on the results from questions 1 and 2, the last question is addressed by compiling the level of An initial approach: text mining attention to soil and soil-related ES in plans, across planning phases, ES covered and relevance of indica- Planning theories are moving towards a better inte- tors, and identifying opportunities to create better links gration of sustainable development goals into urban between soil science and urban planning. planning practices, which has led to an integration of natural resources into planning. Reports and urban plans are the main tools in urban planning, but, due to The role of soil in urban planning their local and goal-specific nature it is difficult to compare different case studies. To tackle this question The urban planning context we made a selection of seven recent urban planning reports (Table 1) that include sustainable development Urban planning is essential for the development of targets and identified soil-related topics. The reason- ing for the selection of the case studies was: (1) cities and urban communities because it is the technical and political process concerned with the Location—to provide a wide coverage and under- future development and use of land (Savery and standing, at least one case study from each continent, Chastel 2009). Up until late in the 20th century, except for Antarctica; (2) Relevance—cities with size, planning practices focused mainly on urban functions, history and relevance that are also a role-model within such as development of industrial areas and infras- a (inter)national context; (3) Goals—Reports or plans tructure (Simmonds and Hack 2000). Green areas that focus on sustainable development goals for the were seen as vital for the population, but they were city; (4) Accessibility—data and language accessibil- regarded by urban planners as an urban feature, mainly ity by the authors; and (5) Time frame—not older than for recreational purposes. As such, traditionally, there 10 years. 123 Landscape Ecol Table 1 Identification of the urban plans used as case studies Plan City Continent Pop. (1 9 10 ) Year Sustainable Sydney 2030 Sydney Australia 4.9 2014 Plano Diretor de Ordenamento Territorial do Distrito Federal Brası ´lia South America 2.9 2009 The London Plan London Europe 8.6 2016 Cape Town Spatial Development Framework Cape Town Africa 3.7 2012 Urban Development in Tokyo Tokyo Asia 13.6 2011 Ontwikkelingsbeeld 2040 voor de Metropoolregio Amsterdam Amsterdam Europe 2.4 2007 Strategic Plan 2015–2020 Boston North America 4.6 2015 An initial overall assessment of the content of the word ‘‘food’’ has the most unbalanced distribution of reports was performed by applying a text mining the ranking and word count across the different technique (RapidMiner 2016) to identify and rank the documents, indicating that ‘‘food’’ might not have most frequently used words and expressions of each the same relevance in the future goals defined in each document (Table 2). From the assessment, it is clear document. that ‘‘land’’ and ‘‘water’’ are deemed important aspects for sustainable urban development given the consis- The urban plans: in-depth description tent high rank of these words across all plans assessed (Fig. 1). Even though the words ‘‘land’’ and ‘‘water’’ To assess and discuss the role of soil across the are often used, there are fewer mentions of specific selected urban plans in more depth, the information of risks and opportunities related to soil. Furthermore, each plan was analysed and grouped on five transver- while mentions of water properties, such as ‘‘water sal topics: (1) Goals related with soil (functions or quality’’, are distributed evenly across the reports, properties); (2) Soil references in the Appraisal attention to some words is much more skewed. The section—i.e. the section where the current problems Table 2 Assessment of selected urban planning reports based on text mining RapidMiner (2016) Boston Cape Town London Sydney Tokyo Brası ´lia Amsterdam Sum of ranks Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Water 3 (167) 2 (64) 2 (201) 1 (96) 2 (13) 1 (413) 1 (62) 12 Land 2 (508) 1 (437) 1 (255) 3 (26) 1 (75) 4 (29) 2 (17) 14 Flood (risk)/flooding 10 (10) 3 (27) 3 (103) 2 (63) 4 (1) 8 (1) 5 (6) 35 Soil 5 (80) 7 (2) 9 (3) 5 (3) 3 (5) 2 (174) 7 (3) 38 Food 1 (3328) 6 (9) 4 (41) 4 (12) 10 (0) 8 (1) 9 (1) 42 Food production 4 (111) 10 (0) 6 (4) 5 (3) 10 (0) 3 (36) 9 (1) 47 Water quality 8 (26) 7 (2) 5 (8) 7 (1) 10 (0) 6 (3) 5 (6) 48 Agricultural resources 6 (32) 7 (2) 10 (0) 10 (0) 10 (0) 10 (0) 5 (6) 58 c c Ecosystems 9 (24) 5 (20) 9 (3) 10 (0) 10 (0) 5 (22) 10 (0) 105 Natural resources 7 (28) 5 (20) 9 (3) 10 (0) 10 (0) 10 (0) 7 (3) 105 Rank of the words/expressions according to the word count within each document. In parenthesis the absolute number of words in the document is indicated The ‘‘Sum of Ranks’’ is the result of adding all rank values. Such approach allows comparing the relation between different words, e.g., the smaller the value, the bigger the importance in the overall ranking of the word In case of equal word count, both words obtained the same rank and the lowest of the two ranks was selected to ensure that words with no reference across the document were assigned a rank of 10 123 Landscape Ecol Boston Cape Town London Sydney Tokyo Brasília Amsterdam 9 Fig. 1 Word count ranking distribution are identified; (3) Soil references in the Plan section— indicators as a tool for climate change impact assess- i.e. the section where goals or concrete measures are ment. Ecosystem services are considered in the plan as proposed; (4) Soil references in the Monitoring a tool to assess environmental impacts, but as well as a section—i.e. the section where strategies to monitor tool to monitor the performance of the environment the implementation of the plan are proposed; and (5) and wellbeing of the population. Some general Monitoring indicators/ecosystem services proposed. indicators are suggested (cultural, social, environmen- Below is a brief description of the findings, presented tal, economic and demographic) but are not proposed for each city. in detail; instead the report suggests developing them further in future annual reports. In the proposed Sydney measures, soil functions are mentioned indirectly, through the goal to increase areas to promote biodi- The Sustainable Sydney 2030 plan was developed by versity and food production in and around the city of the City of Sydney and aims to define a long-term Sydney. sustainable strategy for the city. The scope of the plan is intended to be broader than just defining environ- Cape Town mental goals by, for example, also defining commu- nity goals. The plan focuses on visions and goals, The Cape Town Spatial Development Framework has rather than concrete measures. One of the main goals the main objective ‘‘to guide and manage urban of the plan is to turn the city of Sydney into ‘‘a leading growth, and to balance competing land use demands, environmental performer’’ and international refer- by putting in place a long-term logical development ence, by tackling climate change mitigation and path that will shape the spatial form and structure of adaptation and assuring the quality of life for the Cape Town’’ (City of Cape Town 2012). This plan population. The broad scope of the plan and the lack of assumes that urban expansion is inevitable, so the concrete measures lead to weak references to soil. main focus of the framework is also to integrate the Most of the references to soil are made indirectly, urban expansion with the city’s needs in terms of e.g. through proposed goals to create additional space economic, natural and social resources. The main for urban green and food production. There is a clear goals are ambitious and supported by a vision—‘‘Cape reference to the potential of using ecosystem service Town Vision 2040’’—which make the goals very Food Land Water Soil Flood (risk)/Flooding Water Quality Food producon Ecosystems Natural resources Agricultural resources Landscape Ecol broad. Soils are mentioned indirectly, e.g. ‘‘identifi- The main soil-related references in the plan are in cation of areas suitable for new urban development the general goals for the future of Tokyo: (1) based on the impact on natural resources’’. The report Promotion of comprehensive flood control measures; has a clear focus on providing guidelines for the (2) Greenery network; and (3) Water resources and implementation of the ‘‘Vision 2040’’, resulting in a effective use. However, despite the three goals very detailed description of measures to be imple- defined, there are no further references to soil besides mented and a lesser focus on the current issues and the proposed measure ‘‘creation of Green Production future monitoring possibilities. Districts’’. This measure aims to protect identified Soil is addressed in the report mainly indirectly, via areas with relevance for the city, mainly due to their its functions or implications, such as the contribution of scenic and recreational value. The document aims to impervious areas to increased stormwater runoff. present the main urban projects for the future of the When looking to the individual sections of the plan city, and therefore lacks information on the actual (appraisal, plan and monitoring) it is also possible to environmental problems of the city and on future identify the lack of soil-related concepts or weak links monitoring strategies. between them. For example, the appraisal section refers mainly to water-related problems and drivers, Brası´lia such as water demand management, water quality or Brası ´lia is one of the few megacities in the world that the implication of climate change in flood risk areas. In this section, soil is also indirectly addressed as a has had urban planning strategies since its beginning. concern in urban fringe areas due to the loss of It was planned to be the capital of Brazil and it has agricultural areas to new urban developments. In the grown to be the fourth biggest city in the country with plan section, there are many suggestions of measures to an estimated population of 2.9 million in 2016 (IBGE be implemented with the plan; notwithstanding, the 2016). The Regional Spatial Master Plan (Governo do link between the soil-related issues identified in the distrito Federal 2009) aims at defining the future urban first part and the proposed measures is not always clear. strategies by promoting a sustainable use of the land For example, one of the proposed measures is ‘‘protect functions and a balance between social, economic and and enhance the city’s rural environment’’ and it is environmental dimensions. Soil, as other natural detailed as sub-measures ‘‘develop and manage rural resources, is within the overall target of protection gateways’’ or ‘‘rationalise and proactively manage and valorisation of the natural resources and heritage. smallholdings’’; however, there are no guidelines or The Brası ´lia Master Plan is a comprehensive and indications on the implication for the natural resources. detailed plan, i.e., with an extensive appraisal section and, in particular, a variety of proposed measures for Tokyo the metropolitan area of Brası ´lia. Most of the issues identified are related with the sensitivity of soils to With a population of over 13 million people, Tokyo is erosion and water availability for agriculture and a megacity and a metropolitan area with a major human consumption. The plan also identifies the importance both in the Japanese context and interna- challenges in soil management at the urban fringe due tionally. The plan Urban Development in Tokyo has to the pressure of the new developments. There are the ambition of ‘‘creating an attractive and prosperous three main proposed measures to mitigate the identi- environmentally-leading city that will serve as a fied threats: (1) identification of critical areas for water model for the world’’ (Tokyo Metropolitan Govern- management; (2) promotion of agricultural activities; ment 2011). The focus throughout the document is, and (3) creation of more management plans. Even however, mostly on urban projects, such as detailing though the Brasılia Master Plan is very extensive on new urban development projects per district, and less the appraisal and proposed measures the plan com- on the environmental properties. In particular, soil is pletely lacks a monitoring strategy or indicators to rarely addressed either directly or indirectly (soil- assess the performance or implementation of the plan. related functions), as the main focus of the plan is on the already highly developed districts. 123 Landscape Ecol London but integrate different strategies from the different stakeholders. Such an effort leads to a document with London is one of the biggest (around 8.6 million ambitious, overarching goals and only few concrete people) and most influential cities in Europe. The proposed measures. London Plan (Greater London Authority 2016)isa The report does not have a clear separation between detailed document that aims to be a reference in the appraisal, plan or monitoring sections due to its sustainable development goals for cities worldwide. overarching strategic aim. There is a clear description The main goal of the document is to transform London of the priority visions for the future (until 2040) and into a ‘‘world leader’’ city with effective measures to some information on the current and past issues, but improve the environment locally and globally. Specif- concrete measures to implement or to monitor the ically, the plan aims to tackle climate change issues by performance of the plan are lacking. One of the reducing pollution, developing a low carbon economy reasons could be that the plan needs to be a working and reducing the consumption and effective usage of document for multiple stakeholders, such as institu- natural resources. Despite ambitious goals regarding tions and municipalities. As for soil-related issues, it the effective usage of natural resources, there are very addresses the need to support more climate resilient few direct references to soil in the document, even strategies by protecting valuable areas (reference is questioning if soil is seen by the authors of the plan as made to green and blue quality networks). The most a relevant natural resource. concrete measure in the document is the need to The London Plan is a strategic document that increase the water storage capacity of the peat areas in focuses mainly on the proposed measures, since it only the area north of Amsterdam. provides general statements about the current situation and does not specify many details on any of the natural Boston resources, including soil. However, both the proposed measures and monitoring indicators are addressed in The Metropolitan Area Planning Council of Boston is the plan. There is a focus on measures to mitigate the main responsible for the regional planning strat- climate change, such as floods and urban heating. egy, the ‘‘MetroFuture: Making a Greater Boston Nevertheless, there is also concern with losses of open Region’’ (Reardon 2008). The MetroFuture is an land areas and agricultural activities. The London Plan extensive strategic plan that is composed of two main proposes 24 indicators for all subjects. These indica- documents: ‘‘MetroFuture: goals and objectives’’ and tors do not have, however, concrete measure specifi- ‘‘Metrofuture implementation strategies’’; making it cations and rather describe the individual target for the most extensive plan of the seven case studies. The each indicator. In the plan it is proposed indicators to plan’s vision was built on the inclusion of multiple assess the rate of loss of unsealed soils to new institutional and community stakeholder’s perspec- developments and to improve the water infrastructure tives and presents 65 specific goals for the metropoli- in the city. tan area. Overall, the main target of the document is to achieve a sustainable growth of the region by targeting Amsterdam a high quality of life for the community. Unsealed soil is addressed as a relevant part of the region to be The metropolitan region of Amsterdam with about 2.2 protected from conversion to urban developments. million people is one of the biggest and more dynamic The ‘‘MetroFuture implementation strategies’’ doc- urban areas in The Netherlands and in the Randstad ument lists 13 different strategies to implement the region. The Strategic Vision for Amsterdam 2040 plan and has several detailed goals and measures. Out (Metropoolregio Amsterdam 2008) is a plan devel- of the 13 strategies, there are two more relevant from oped in collaboration with multiple stakeholders the environmental perspective: (1) Protect Natural within the region (e.g. municipalities and water Landscape and (2) Conserve Natural Resources. The authorities) and aims to provide strategic goals for first strategy is mostly focused on planning strategies, the future of the metropolitan area. Due to the scope but also has some very specific soil-related measures. and effort of multiple and different stakeholders the For instance, a ‘‘No Net Loss’’ policy is proposed, plan aims to support not only urban planning strategies forcing institutions that convert land with high value 123 Landscape Ecol for agriculture or nature to other urban uses, to protect plans to increase local food production, no direct link at least another area of the same dimension and value. between soil functions and ‘‘food’’ is established. The second strategy focuses on water-related issues Moreover, there is a difference in presence in refer- and energy. For example, amendments to soil with ences to soil functions between sections, i.e., while organic content are addressed here as vital to reduce there are references to soil functions in the goals and the need of irrigation on agricultural fields. appraisal sections, in the monitoring section there are few concrete actions regarding soil. This seems to The role of soils in the urban plans assessed indicate that there is a lack of capacity to propose or implement indicators that can be integrated into Key findings of the case studies analysed are summa- monitoring (for example, even though the London rized in Table 3 below. For each city we appraised if plan suggests indicators, these are measured by spatial and to what extent soils are included in urban net losses for new developments). Being able to assess planning. The qualitative method followed to assess soil-related functions requires monitoring systems the role of soil focused mainly on identifying soil- with indicators providing information on, and ideally related functions and strategies in the urban plans and quantifying, the contributions of soils to sustainable reports of the case studies. The analysis showed in urban development. general a weak presence of soil in documents guiding future sustainable strategies for leading cities in the world. The strategic nature of some of these urban The role of ecosystem services in soil knowledge- planning documents leads to overarching strategies transfer that lack concrete measures for natural resources, in particular for soil-related functions, with the exception Brief context on soil-related ES of Boston. Another issue identified is the lack of monitoring indicators (except for London) to assess Biodiversity and environmental conservation aware- the performance of the implementation of the plan and ness have been continually evolving and increasing in the impact on soil. importance amongst decision-makers and politicians A comparison between the results in Fig. 1 and (Egoh et al. 2007). In parallel, ES have been frequently Table 3, i.e. the text mining and the qualitative used to assess and measure environmental perfor- assessment of the plans, reveals a discrepancy between mances (Chan et al. 2006; Scarlett and Boyd 2015). ES concepts, functions and focus of the plans. While most has become a mainstreamed concept with wide plans frequently used words such as ‘‘food’’, ‘‘land’’ practical application, guided by four main frame- and ‘‘water’’, soil functions are not addressed equally works: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millen- in the plans. Even though there are some goals in the nium Ecosystem Assessment 2003), TEEB(Kumar Table 3 Summary of references in the urban plans to soil-related functions, by section (goals, appraisal, plan, monitoring and indicators) Plan Goals Appraisal Plan Monitoring Monitoring indicators Sydney ?? ? ? - Brasılia ??? ?? –– London - – ?? ? Cape Town ?? ? - ?? Tokyo ? – - –– Amsterdam ?- ? –– Boston ?? ?? ?? ?? ? (??) Soil is directly mentioned and plays a clear role, (?) There are indirect references to soil or soil-related functions, definitions can be not very clear, (-) There are few indirect references to soil or soil-related functions and definitions are not very clear, (–) Soil is not mentioned in the text 123 Landscape Ecol 2010), CICES (Haines-Young and Potschin 2012) and surroundings (e.g. through the water cycle), indepen- IPBES (D´ ıaz et al. 2015). For example, the MA has put dently of the scale of analysis. Instead, ES frameworks together the contributions of more than 1360 world- tend to consider nature (or its natural resources) as wide experts with the purpose to set an integrated isolated ecosystems or a mosaic of different framework to assess ecosystem change. The general ecosystems. framework presented by the MA proposed the arrangement of the ES in four different categories: Soil-related ES in an urban context (1) support; (2) provision; (3) regulating and (4) cultural. However, the different scope of each frame- Urban expansion and changes in land use not only alter works as led to a long search for a common ground in landscape structures but also affect the ecosystems in the approaches (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Maes et al. these landscapes and their ability to provide benefits to 2016). humans (Niemela ¨ et al. 2010). As seen in the previous Attention to soil-related ES started in an agricul- section, soil is mostly not included or understood in tural context where soil quality is normally addressed urban planning regarding its capacity to provide or in terms of soil productivity (e.g. capacity to support support essential services. On the other hand, in the high quantity or quality of crops). Thus, necessarily, past years there have been many advances in the study soil quality assessment requires a methodology that of ES in the soil scientific community, in particular as a tool to transfer knowledge to practice and commu- not only considers soil properties per se but also an understanding of the soil’s functions (Carter et al. nicate with different stakeholders. In this section, we 1997). One of the most widely used definitions of soil give an overview of soil-related ES examples with quality that is still in use is ‘‘the capacity of a soil to practical application, as found in literature, with the function, within ecosystem and land use boundaries, to purpose of taking stock of possible strengths and sustain productivity, maintain environmental quality, weaknesses for their use in an urban context. and promote plant and animal health’’ (Doran and The development in soil science towards a better Parkin 1994). Even though many definitions have been transfer of knowledge and the importance of soils proposed the concept of soil quality has been through the use of ES is seen in the development of stable and mostly confined to agricultural functions many frameworks proposed over the last years (Lima et al. 2013). Even though soils play a key role in (Dominati et al. 2010; Robinson et al. 2013;Jo ´ nsson supporting, provisioning and regulating food provi- and Davı ´ðsdo ´ ttir 2016; Schwilch et al. 2016). The sion, soils provide other services that are relevant to framework proposed by Schwilch et al. (2016) builds society, such as the capacity to store water. However, on already existing frameworks for soil-related ES and such multitude of services provided by soils are not aims at providing a more suitable platform for fully developed in the main ES frameworks (Dominati stakeholders by defining a consistent and accessible et al. 2010). terminology. This framework was used in this article Baveye et al. (2016) extensively reviewed the to collect case studies of soil-related ES (Table 4), history of soil-related ES and argue that the focus on with the purpose of assessing the body of research soil services and multi-functionality amongst the addressing soil-related ES, the diversity of indicators scientific community emerged earlier than the interest and relevance to urban planning. In compiling case in ES, with some articles published as early as the study applications of soil-related ES assessments, we 1960s. Soil scientists have indeed tried to better prioritised those studies that have either a spatial understand the role of the various functions and application and/or make a quantification of the ES. We characteristics of soils, as well as the interrelationships distributed the case studies across the three main between the different factors. Baveye et al. (2016) also services provided by soils proposed in the framework discuss that major scepticism to the use of the concept and tried to identify examples for all the proposed soil- of ES by soil scientists came from the difficulty in related ES. combining soil and ecosystem concepts, mainly due to Table 4 shows a clear concentration of most of the the interdependence of soil functions (Swinton et al. case studies on particular ES categories. The strong 2007). In the frameworks applied to the soil functions, link between soil and agricultural productivity studies soil is seen as a complex system that interacts with its is evident from the high number of case studies that 123 Landscape Ecol Table 4 Examples of soil ecosystem services case studies with urban focus published since 2008 for the soil-related ES categories Category Ecosystem services Scope Indicator Units References Provisioning Biomass production Valuing post-mining Agricultural Ha Larondelle and landscapes productivity Haase (2012) Valuing post-mining Net primary g/m /a Larondelle and landscapes production Haase (2012) Knowledge transfer Agricultural %/km Bateman et al. production (2013) Landscape services Crop production Yield potential index Ungaro et al. mapping (2014) Land use transitions Food, feed and MJ/ha Mouchet and in Europe fibre Lavorel (2012) -1 -1 Decision making Food kg ha year Ghaley et al. support (2014) -1 -1 Decision making Fodder kg ha year Ghaley et al. support (2014) -1 -1 Economic valuation Food US $ ha year Sandhu et al. of E.S. (2008) Water production Valuing post-mining Groundwater ft /s Larondelle and landscapes recharge Haase (2012) Landscape services Water supply and %/ha Ungaro et al. mapping regulation (2014) Supply of raw Valuing post-mining Forest Ha Larondelle and materials landscapes productivity Haase (2012) 3 2 Land use transitions Raw material m /km fforestry/year Mouchet and in Europe Lavorel (2012) -1 -1 Decision making Wood chips kg ha year Ghaley et al. support (2014) -1 -1 Decision making Wood kg ha year Ghaley et al. support (2014) -1 -1 Economic valuation Raw materials US $ ha year Sandhu et al. of E.S. (2008) -1 -1 Physical base Economic valuation Soil formation US $ ha year Sandhu et al. of E.S. (2008) Regulating and Air quality N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. maintenance regulation Waste treatment Land use transitions Water purification Ton of nitrogen Mouchet and in Europe removed/km/year Lavorel (2012) Water regulation Valuing post-mining Settlements in ha Larondelle and and retention landscapes floodplains Haase (2012) Supply and demand Flood Regulation Supply Index Stu ¨ rck et al. (2014) of E.S. Supply (STREAM model) Supply and demand Flood regulation Demand Index (DSM Stu ¨ rck et al. (2014) of E.S. demand model) Decision making Water holding mm Ghaley et al. support capacity (2014) -1 -1 Economic valuation Hydrological flow US $ ha year Sandhu et al. of E.S. (2008) 123 Landscape Ecol Table 4 continued Category Ecosystem services Scope Indicator Units References Climate Regulation Valuing post- Above-ground carbon MgC/ha Larondelle and mining landscapes storage Haase (2012) Valuing post- Potential ET class Larondelle and mining landscapes evapotranspiration Haase (2012) Decision making Greenhouse gases Ton/km Bateman et al. support (2013) Land Use Climate regulation C/Km /year Mouchet and Transitions in Lavorel (2012) Europe -1 -1 Decision making Carbon sequestration Ton ha year Ghaley et al. (2014) support Economic valuation Carbon accumulation US $ Sandhu et al. (2008) -1 -1 of E.S. ha year -1 -1 Maintenance of Soil Fertility Decision making Nitrogen fixation Kg ha year Ghaley et al. (2014) support Economic valuation Soil fertility US $ Sandhu et al. (2008) -1 -1 of E.S. ha year Economic valuation Nitrogen fixation US $ Sandhu et al. (2008) -1 -1 of E.S. ha year Economic valuation Mineralization of US $ Sandhu et al. (2008) -1 -1 of E.S. plant nutrients ha year -1 -1 Erosion control Decision making Erosion prevention Ton ha year Ghaley et al. (2014) support Pollination Historical land use Pollination—potential m Lautenbach et al. change nesting sites (2011) Economic valuation Pollination US $ Sandhu et al. (2008) -1 -1 of E.S. ha year Biological control Environmental Pesticide leaching risk Risk Index Lindahl and indicator Bockstaller (2012) Economic valuation Biological control of US $ Sandhu et al. (2008) -1 -1 of E.S. pests ha year Lifecycle maintenance Habitat Valuing post- Shore development m/ha Larondelle and mining landscapes Haase (2012) Decision making Wild bird-species Number/km Bateman et al. support diversity (2013) Landscape services Habitat for species %/ha Ungaro et al. (2014) mapping -2 Gene pool protection Decision making Earthworm count No m Ghaley et al. (2014) support Cultural Enabling of spiritual and Valuing post- Recreational areas Number Larondelle and aesthetical experiences mining landscapes Haase (2012) Decision making Recreation Number/km Bateman et al. support (2013) Land use transitions Leisure Recreation Mouchet and in Europe potential Index Lavorel (2012) Economic valuation Aesthetics US $ Sandhu et al. (2008) -1 -1 of E.S. ha year 123 Landscape Ecol Table 4 continued Category Ecosystem services Scope Indicator Units References Historical land use change Outdoor m Lautenbach et al. recreation (2011) Provision of inspiration Landscape services Visual Number/ Ungaro et al. (2014) mapping appreciation ha Representation of cultural N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. heritage include an assessment of provisioning soil-related ES, methods can most likely be justified by the scope of such as biomass production (Sandhu et al. 2008; each study, but point to difficulties in comparing and Lautenbach et al. 2011; Larondelle and Haase 2012; aggregating results across studies. Lastly, access to Mouchet and Lavorel 2012; Bateman et al. 2013; data seems to be a limitation for the quantification of Ghaley et al. 2014; Ungaro et al. 2014) or supply of some services, such as cultural services. Table 4 raw materials (Sandhu et al. 2008; Larondelle and suggests that the development of some indicators seem Haase 2012; Mouchet and Lavorel 2012; Ghaley et al. to be limited by the availability of data, which can 2014). Besides the soil-related provisioning services, derive in a poor quantification of the ES. there is an already broad coverage of other ES. Nonetheless, to the best of our knowledge some soil- related ES remain fairly unexplored, such as lifecycle Challenges and opportunities to integrate soil maintenance or representation of cultural heritage. into urban planning Cultural ES supported by soils have high relevance to urban planning due to its implications for urban In line with increased high-level attention to sustain- residents’ quality of life. One example of the contri- able development, the relevance of soil is growing bution of soil to cultural ES are burial grounds, which more and more in the agenda of many urban planning hold great cultural meaning and value to the local initiatives. One of the EU initiatives that has enhanced population. this interest is the European Green Capital Award The assessment and distribution of the literature in (European Commission 2017). Out of the 12 key the framework proposed by Schwilch et al. (2016) indicators appraised for the award, 6 can be directly helped identify some issues with actual approaches of related with soil: climate change, green urban areas soil-related ES case studies. Firstly, most of the case incorporating sustainable land use, nature and biodi- studies are focused on production and do not prioritize versity, water management, waste water management other relevant services that could be used by other and integrated environmental management. There- stakeholders, such as urban planners or city decision- fore, urban planning needs to become more engaged makers. Secondly, even though there are soil-related with soils because sustainable development of cities ES frameworks, they primarily serve to systematically also depends on sustainable use of soil resources. This account for multiple ES without offering guidance on calls for a closer look at the barriers and steps that need how to link different indicators (as seen, for example, to be taken in order to promote the integration of soil in Table 4 with multiple quantification methods for into urban planning. similar ES). Such inconsistencies can be a barrier for Our analysis shows that soil is evidently still not the application of the knowledge by other stakehold- widely understood or taken into consideration in ers, such as urban planners or decision-makers. recent urban plans, even for globally leading cities. On Thirdly, the indicators and the valuation methods the other hand, soil scientists have been making an chosen across all soil-related ES assessed are very effort to provide information and tools that can different, even within the same category, e.g., the improve the transfer of knowledge about the functions differences in units between similar indicators, such as soils provide to a multitude of new stakeholders. biomass production. Differences in quantification However, the major focus on specific functions, 123 Landscape Ecol notably biomass production, shows that there are still monitoring and actions sections in the plans reviewed. many steps to be taken in providing soil information Defining a common ground is absolutely necessary, that covers a wider spectrum of soil-related ES tailored for example through establishing indicator systems to an urban context, in particular cultural and regulat- that transcend technical and discipline-specific mean- ing services. ings. The accessibility and use of the information The ES concept holds significant relevance as an provided through soil-related ES should also be taken approach to better integrate soil information into urban in consideration in future studies. The success of such planning. Acknowledgement of the importance of ES integration will depend on data availability. Therefore, in international policy has triggered an increasing we expect that a combination of data-driven interest in ES globally. There is nonetheless a need to approaches and operationalisation of the ES concept frame soil-related ES in broader concepts, such as the can provide a clear roadmap to integrate urban SDGs, to increase the recognition of the importance of planning and soil science. soil in other sectors besides agriculture. Such approaches would benefit from a proposal of indica- tors that are clear on the benefits for the community Conclusion and its quality of life. Ongoing efforts, e.g. by the IPBES, to make ES indicators more relevant to policy In this paper, we identified the importance and ´ opportunities to integrate soil-related ES into urban and planning (Dıaz et al. 2018) may spur important progress. In particular, we recommend that new urban planning practices and approaches. From this review, plans should include indicators that allow to assess and the following conclusions and recommendations are quantify the soil quality and the multitude of benefits drawn: provided by urban soils. Although the analysed urban plans focus on deliv- ES could also easily be used to monitor develop- ering sustainable strategies, and regardless of whether ments in plans and, at the same time, strengthen the plans propose any concrete or strategic measures, awareness about soils within the urban planning most plans do not address soil directly as a critical community. In planning sustainable urban develop- natural resource in itself. Instead, they mostly identify ment there is a need to be able to assess trade-offs and several soil functions as important. synergies between environment and development. ES Most of the plans identified monitoring and the use indicators can be integrated in scenario analyses, for of environmental indicators as a critical step in example to make ex-ante assessments of plans inves- assessing the performance of the implementation of tigating if nature-based solutions (Kabisch et al. 2016) the plan. However, most plans did not present concrete are cheaper than engineering solutions. and measurable indicators. Nevertheless, the integra- Efforts of developing awareness about soil-related tion of such soil-related ES could be directly linked ES and functions are essential to promote the inclusion with monitoring indicators and, therefore, integrated of such factors into urban planning. It is important to in the plans measures. The environmental indicators do so not only through isolated scientific efforts but by used and developed in recent and on-going studies involving and working together with relevant stake- presented in this paper offer ample opportunities for holders. High level goals (such as SDG’s) are integration in these plans. frequently mentioned in the urban plans. This hierar- A wide range of soil-related ES studies was chical embedding offers an opportunity for cities to identified. Most of the soil-related ES case studies learn from each other. focus on provisioning services and revealed to be little Integrating ES in urban planning may provide a developed on other functions provided by soils. The framework for bridging the different fields of exper- soil-related ES indicators identified require different tise, and may even drive a transformation beyond methods to quantify the ES. Such multitude of current fragmentary technical and disciplinary knowl- methods can represent barriers to the ease of applica- edge. The analysis performed allowed to unveil a lack tion for users without advanced technical knowledge of knowledge on how to integrate and operationalize or limited access to specific data, equipment or soil-related ES into planning practices. Such is evident techniques. An improvement of data collection from the lack of soil-related references in the 123 Landscape Ecol Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The methods suitable to urban areas also seems to be need for standardized environmental accounting units. critical to aid the uptake of most soil-related ES. Ecol Econ 63(2–3):616–626 The need for a greater and widespread awareness of Campbell S (1996) Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: the soil functions and services in urban planning is urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. J Am Plan Assoc 62(3):296–312 evident. To achieve this, we think that there are several Carter MR, Gregorich EG, Anderson DW, Doran JW, Janzen requirements. Further efforts are required to raise HH, Pierce FJ (1997) Concepts of soil quality and their awareness of the importance of soil in an urban significance. In: Carter MR, Gregorich EG (eds) Devel- context, especially amongst urban planners and local opments in soil science soil quality for crop production and ecosystem health. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–19 decision-makers. Integration of soil-related ES indi- Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily cators in decision-support systems would help to show GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. the importance of soil functions for sustainable PLoS Biol 4(11):e379 development in an urban context. On the other hand, City of Cape Town (2012) Cape Town spatial development framework—staturory report. Cape Town, South Africa there is also a need to better consider the demand for Clark B (2003) Ebenezer Howard and the marriage of town and soil-related ES indicators from the planning perspec- country: an introduction to Howard’s Garden cities of to- tive. In particular, soil-related ES indicators in urban morrow (Selections). Organ Environ 16(1):87–97 areas that focus on lifecycle maintenance and cultural ´ Dıaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Baldi A, Bartuska A, benefits of soil to society. This could be improved by Baste IA, Bilgin A, Brondizio E, Chan KMA, Figueroa VE, more involvement of different stakeholders. Duraiappah A, Fischer M, Hill R, Koetz T, Leadley P, Lyver P, Mace GM, Martin-Lopez B, Okumura M, Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Rens Pacheco D, Pascual U, Perez ES, Reyers B, Roth E, Saito Masselink, Coleen Carranza, Miao Yu, Demie Moore, Karrar O, Scholes RJ, Sharma N, Tallis H, Thaman R, Watson R, Mahdi, Beatriz Ramirez Correal, Selamawit Amare and Bram te Yahara T, Hamid ZA, Akosim C, Al-Hafedh Y, Allah- Brake for their comments and scientific input to the article. The verdiyev R, Amankwah E, Asah ST, Asfaw Z, Bartus G, authors are also grateful for the contribution of the reviewers Brooks LA, Caillaux J, Dalle G, Darnaedi D, Driver A, that helped improve this manuscript. Erpul G, Escobar-Eyzaguirre P, Failler P, Fouda AMM, Fu B, Gundimeda H, Hashimoto S, Homer F, Lavorel S, Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Lichtenstein G, Mala WA, Mandivenyi W, Matczak P, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// Mbizvo C, Mehrdadi M, Metzger JP, Mikissa JB, Moller H, creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unre- Mooney HA, Mumby P, Nagendra H, Nesshover C, Oteng- stricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, Yeboah AA, Pataki G, Roue ´ M, Rubis J, Schultz M, Smith provided you give appropriate credit to the original P, Sumaila R, Takeuchi K, Thomas S, Verma M, Yeo- author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- Chang Y, Zlatanova D (2015) The IPBES conceptual mons license, and indicate if changes were made. framework—connecting nature and people. Open Issue 14:1–16 Dı ´az S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martı ´n-Lo ´ pez B, Watson RT, Molna ´r Z, Hill R, Chan KMA, Baste IA, Brauman KA, Polasky S, Church A, Lonsdale M, Larigauderie A, Lead- References ley PW, van Oudenhoven APE, van der Plaat F, Schro ¨ ter M, Lavorel S, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bukvareva E, Artmann M (2014) Institutional efficiency of urban soil sealing Davies K, Demissew S, Erpul G, Failler P, Guerra CA, management—from raising awareness to better imple- Hewitt CL, Keune H, Lindley S, Shirayama Y (2018) mentation of sustainable development in Germany. Landsc Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science Urban Plan 131:83–95 359(6373):270 Bateman IJ, Harwood AR, Mace GM, Watson RT, Abson DJ, Dominati E, Patterson M, Mackay A (2010) A framework for Andrews B, Binner A, Crowe A, Day BH, Dugdale S, Fezzi classifying and quantifying the natural capital and C, Foden J, Hadley D, Haines-Young R, Hulme M, Kon- ecosystem services of soils. Ecol Econ 69(9):1858–1868 toleon A, Lovett AA, Munday P, Pascual U, Paterson J, Doran JW, Parkin TB (1994) Defining and assessing soil quality. Perino G, Sen A, Siriwardena G, van Soest D, Termansen In: Doran JW, Coleman DC, Bezdicek DF, Stewart BA M (2013) Bringing ecosystem services into economic (eds) Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment. decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science SSSA Special Publication. Soil Science Society of Amer- 341(6141):45 ica and American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 1–21 Baveye PC, Baveye J, Gowdy J (2016) Soil ‘‘ecosystem’’ ser- Egoh B, Rouget M, Reyers B, Knight AT, Cowling RM, van vices and natural capital: critical appraisal of research on Jaarsveld AS, Welz A (2007) Integrating ecosystem ser- uncertain ground. Front Environ Sci 4:41 vices into conservation assessments: a review. Sustain Cost-Benefit Anal 63(4):714–721 123 Landscape Ecol European Commission (2017) Technical Assessment Report: Kumar P (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: European Green Capital Award. http://ec.europa.eu/ ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London environment/europeangreencapital/wp-content/uploads/ and Washington 2013/02/EGCA_Technical_Assessment_Synopsis_ Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Report_Award_Cycle_2019.pdf. Accessed May 2017 Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary Friedmann J (1998) Planning theory revisited. Eur Plan Stud research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and 6(3):245–253 challenges. Sustain Sci 7(1):25–43 Gardi C, Panagos P, van Liedekerke M, Bosco C, de Brogniez D Larondelle N, Haase D (2012) Valuing post-mining landscapes (2014) Land take and food security: assessment of land using an ecosystem services approach—an example from take on the agricultural production in Europe. J Environ Germany. Ecol Indic 18:567–574 Plan Manag 58(5):898–912 Lauf S, Haase D, Kleinschmit B (2016) The effects of growth, Ghaley BB, Vesterdal L, Porter JR (2014) Quantification and shrinkage, population aging and preference shifts on urban valuation of ecosystem services in diverse production development—A spatial scenario analysis of Berlin, Ger- systems for informed decision-making. Environ Sci Policy many. Land Use Policy 52:240–254 39:139–149 Lautenbach S, Kugel C, Lausch A, Seppelt R (2011) Analysis of Go ´ mez-Baggethun E, Barton DN (2013) Classifying and valu- historic changes in regional ecosystem service provision- ing ecosystem services for urban planning. Sustain Urban ing using land use data. Ecol Indic 11(2):676–687 86:235–245 Lima A, Brussaard L, Totola MR, Hoogmoed WB, de Goede R Governo do distrito Federal (2009) Plano Diretor de Ordena- (2013) A functional evaluation of three indicator sets for mento Territorial do Distrito Federal: Documento Tecnico, assessing soil quality. Appl Soil Ecol 64:194–200 Brasılia Lindahl AM, Bockstaller C (2012) An indicator of pesticide Greater London Authority (2016) The London Plan: The Spatial leaching risk to groundwater. Ecol Indic 23:95–108 Development Strategy for London Consolidated with Maes J, Liquete C, Teller A, Erhard M, Paracchini ML, Barredo alterations since 2011, London JI, Grizzetti B, Cardoso A, Somma F, Petersen J-E, Meiner Guerry AD, Polasky S, Lubchenco J, Chaplin-Kramer R, Daily A, Gelabert ER, Zal N, Kristensen P, Bastrup-Birk A, Biala GC, Griffin R, Ruckelshaus M, Bateman IJ, Duraiappah A, K, Piroddi C, Egoh B, Degeorges P, Fiorina C, Santos- ´ ˇ ˇ Elmqvist T, Feldman MW, Folke C, Hoekstra J, Kareiva Martın F, Narusevicius V, Verboven J, Pereira HM, PM, Keeler BL, Li S, McKenzie E, Ouyang Z, Reyers B, Bengtsson J, Gocheva K, Marta-Pedroso C, Sna ¨ll T, Ricketts TH, Rockstro ¨ m J, Tallis H, Vira B (2015) Natural Estreguil C, San-Miguel-Ayanz J, Pe ´rez-Soba M, Gre ˆt- capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from Regamey A, Lillebø AI, Malak DA, Conde ´ S, Moen J, promise to practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci Czu ´ cz B, Drakou EG, Zulian G, Lavalle C (2016) An 112(24):7348–7355 indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in Haase D, Larondelle N, Andersson E, Artmann M, Borgstro ¨mS, support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosyst Breuste J, Gomez-Baggethun E, Gren A, Hamstead Z, Serv 17:14–23 Hansen R, Kabisch N, Kremer P, Langemeyer J, Rall EL, McGranahan G, Balk D, Anderson B (2007) The rising tide: McPhearson T, Pauleit S, Qureshi S, Schwarz N, Voigt A, assessing the risks of climate change and human settle- Wurster D, Elmqvist T (2014) A quantitative review of ments in low elevation coastal zones. Environ Urban urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, 19(1):17–37 and implementation. Ambio 43(4):413–433 McGrane SJ (2016) Impacts of urbanisation on hydrological and Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2012) Common International water quality dynamics, and urban water management: a Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consulta- review. Hydrol Sci J 61(13):2295–2311 tion on Version 4 Metropoolregio Amsterdam (2008) Metropoolregio Amster- IBGE (2016) Estimativas da populac ¸a ˜o residente no Brasil e dam—Ontwikkelingsbeeld Noordvleugel 2040, unidades da Federac ¸a ˜o com data de refere ˆncia em 1 de Amsterdam Julho de 2016. ftp://ftp.ibge.gov.br/Estimativas_de_Popu- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and lacao/Estimativas_2016/estimativa_2016_TCU.pdf. human well-being: a framework for assessment. Millen- Accessed Nov 2016 nium Ecosystem Assessment, Washington DC ´ ´ ´ Jonsson JOG, Davıðsdottir B (2016) Classification and valua- Mol G, Keesstra S (2012) Soil science in a changing world. Terr tion of soil ecosystem services. Agric Syst 145:24–38 Syst 4(5):473–477 Kabisch N, Frantzeskaki N, Pauleit S, Naumann S, Davis M, Morel JL, Chenu C, Lorenz K (2015) Ecosystem services pro- Artmann M, Haase D, Knapp S, Korn H, Stadler J, Zaun- vided by soils of urban, industrial, traffic, mining, and berger K, Bonn A (2016) Nature-based solutions to climate military areas (SUITMAs). J Soils Sediments change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspec- 15(8):1659–1666 tives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and oppor- Mouchet M, Lavorel S (2012) Volante—visions of land use tunities for action. Ecol Soc 21(2):39 transitions in Europe: D8.1. A framework for trade-off Keesstra SD, Bouma J, Wallinga J, Tittonell P, Smith P, Cerda ` analysis of ecosystem service indicators A, Montanarella L, Quinton JN, Pachepsky Y, van der Niemela ¨ J, Saarela S-R, So ¨ derman T, Kopperoinen L, Yli- Putten WH, Bardgett RD, Moolenaar S, Mol G, Jansen B, Pelkonen V, Va ¨re S, Kotze DJ (2010) Using the ecosystem Fresco LO (2016) The significance of soils and soil science services approach for better planning and conservation of towards realization of the United Nations Sustainable urban green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodivers Con- Development Goals. SOIL 2(2):111–128 serv 19(11):3225–3243 123 Landscape Ecol RapidMiner (2016) RapidMiner. http://www.rapidminer.com Seto KC, Fragkias M, Guneralp B, Reilly MK (2011) A meta- Reardon T (2008) MetroFuture: making a greater boster region: analysis of global urban land expansion. PLoS ONE an initiative of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, 6(8):e23777 Boston Simmonds R, Hack G (eds) (2000) Global city regions: their Robinson DA, Hockley N, Cooper DM, Emmett BA, Keith AM, emerging forms. Spon Press, London Lebron I, Reynolds B, Tipping E, Tye AM, Watts CW, Stu ¨ rck J, Poortinga A, Verburg PH (2014) Mapping ecosystem Whalley WR, Black H, Warren GP, Robinson JS (2013) services: the supply and demand of flood regulation ser- Natural capital and ecosystem services, developing an vices in Europe. Ecol Indic 38:198–211 appropriate soils framework as a basis for valuation. Soil Sun Di, Yang H, Guan D, Yang M, Wu J, Yuan F, Jin C, Wang Biol Biochem 57:1023–1033 A, Zhang Y (2018) The effects of land use change on soil Sandhu HS, Wratten SD, Cullen R, Case B (2008) The future of infiltration capacity in China: a meta-analysis. Sci Total farming: the value of ecosystem services in conventional Environ 626:1394–1401 and organic arable land. An experimental approach. Ecol Swinton SM, Lupi F, Robertson GP, Hamilton SK (2007) Econ 64(4):835–848 Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricul- Savery N, de Chastel L (2009) The importance and value of tural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecosyst Serv Agric urban and regional planning. Aust Plan 46(3):6–9 64(2):245–252 Scarlett L, Boyd J (2015) Ecosystem services and resource Tokyo Metropolitan Government (2011) Urban development in management: institutional issues, challenges, and oppor- Tokyo. Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Tokyo tunities in the public sector. Ecol Econ 115:3–10 Ungaro F, Zasada I, Piorr A (2014) Mapping landscape services, Schwilch G, Bernet L, Fleskens L, Giannakis E, Leventon J, spatial synergies and trade-offs. A case study using vari- Maran ˜ on T, Mills J, Short C, Stolte J, van Delden H, ogram models and geostatistical simulations in an agrarian Verzandvoort S (2016) Operationalizing ecosystem ser- landscape in North-East Germany. Ecol Indic 46:367–378 vices for the mitigation of soil threats: a proposed frame- United Nations (2014) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 work. Ecol Indic 67:586–597 Revision Scott AJ (2001) Global city-regions: trends, theory, policy/ van Haren N, van Boxtel K (2017) Grounding Sustainability: edited by Allen J. Scott. Oxford University Press, Oxford land, soils and the sustainable development goals. Briefing ¨ ¨ Setala H, Bardgett RD, Birkhofer K, Brady M, Byrne L, de Paper Both Ends, Amsterdam Ruiter PC, de Vries FT, Gardi C, Hedlund K, Hemerik L, Wilson E (2006) Adapting to climate change at the local level: Hotes S, Liiri M, Mortimer SR, Pavao-Zuckerman M, the spatial planning response. Local Environ Pouyat R, Tsiafouli M, van der Putten WH (2014) Urban 11(6):609–625 and agricultural soils: conflicts and trade-offs in the opti- mization of ecosystem services. Urban Ecosyst 17(1):239–253

Journal

Landscape EcologySpringer Journals

Published: May 31, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off