CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 446Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesSustainable Development and Environmental PolicyEconomic and Environmental Valuation

Soil “ecosystem” services and natural capital: critical appraisal of research on uncertain ground

Open access
Baveye, Philippe C., Baveye, Jacques, Gowdy, John·2016·Frontiers in Environmental Science
DOI 10.3389/fenvs.2016.00041
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Over the last few years, considerable attention has been devoted in the scientific literature and in the media to the concept of "ecosystem" services of soils. The monetary valuation of these services, demanded by many governments and international agencies, is often depicted as a necessary condition for the preservation of the natural capital that soils represent. This focus on soil services is framed in the context of a general interest in ecosystem services that allegedly started in 1997, and took off in earnest after 2005. The careful analysis of the literature proposed in this article shows that, in fact, interest in the multifunctionality of soils emerged already in the mid-60s, at a time when hundreds of researchers worldwide were trying, and largely failing, to figure out how to put price tags meaningfully on "nature's services." Soil scientists, since, have tried to better understand various functions/services of soils, as well as their possible relation with key soil characteristics, like biodiversity. They have also tried to make progress on the challenging quantification of soil functions/services. However, researchers have shown very little interest in monetary valuation, undoubtedly in part because it is not clear what economic and financial markets might do with prices of soil functions/services, even if we could somehow come up with such numbers, and because there is no assurance at all, based on neoclassical economic theory, that markets would manage soil resources optimally. Instead of monetary valuation, focus in the literature has been put on decision-making methods, like Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN), which do not require the systematic monetization of soil functions/services and easily accommodate deliberative approaches involving a variety of stakeholders. A prerequisite to progress in such public deliberations is that participants be very cognizant of the extreme relevance of soils to many aspects of their daily life. We argue that, as long as this prerequisite is satisfied, the combination of deliberative decision-making methods and of a sound scientific approach to the quantification of soil functions/services is a very promising avenue to manage effectively and ethically the priceless heritage that soils constitute.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fenvs.2016.00041

Cites

417 of 417 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Soil quality can only be assessed in relation to one or several soil functions, ecosystem services or soil threats.

    “It has been argued that soil quality can indeed only be assessed in relation to one or several soil functions, ecosystem services or soil threats (e.g. Baveye et al., 2016; Bouma, 2014; Sojka and Upchurch, 1999; Volchko et al., 2013).”

    From Soil quality – A critical review (2018) · cites this paper as Baveye et al., 2016

    In “Categories of Soil Functions” (page unavailable), the paper reports that a growing number of researchers consider soil quality meaningful to evaluate only in relation to specific soil functions. It does not extend that assessment claim to soil threats. Although it discusses soil services as related to functions, it does not expressly give ecosystem services as an alternative basis for assessing soil quality. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The term function is variably used as a synonym for process, functioning, role and service.

    “' Function ' is, however, variably used as a synonym for 1) process, 2) function ing , 3) role and 4) service (Baveye et al., 2016; Glenk et al., 2012).”

    From Soil quality – A critical review (2018) · cites this paper as Baveye et al., 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Blum, W. E. H. (1988). "Problems of soil conservation, " in Nature and Environment Series, Vol. 39. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Steering Committee for the Conservation and Management of the Environment and Natural Habitats (CDPE).
  2. Blume, H.-P., Brümmer, G. W., Fleige, H., Horn, R., Kandeler, E., Kögel-Knabner, I., et al. (2016). Scheffer/Schachtschabel Soil Science. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
  3. Blume, H.-P., Horn, R., and Thiele-Bruhn, S. (2010). Handbuch des Bodenschutzes: Bodenökologie und -belastung Vorbeugende und abwehrende Schutzmaßnahmen. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
  4. Blum, W. E. H., Warkentin, B. P., and Frossard, E. (2006). "Soil, human society and the environment, " in Functions of Soils for Human Societies and the Environment, Vol. 266, eds E. Frossard, W. E. H. Blum, and B. P. Warkentin (London: The Geological Society of London), 1-8.
  5. Bristow, K. L., Marchant, S. M., Deurer, M., and Clothier, B. E. (2010). "Enhancing the ecological infrastructure of soils, " in Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science: Soil Solutions for a Changing World, 1-6 August 2010. Symposium 4.1.1 Valuing the Soil's Natural Capital (Brisbane, QLD), 13-16.
  6. Daily, G. C., Matson, P. A., and Vitousek, P. M. (1997). "Ecosystem services supplied by soil, " in Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, ed G. C. Daily (Washington, DC: Island Press), 113-132.
  7. di Castri, F. (1970). "Major problems facing ecologists in the study of soil ecosystems (in French), " in Methods of Study in Soil Ecology, Proceedings of a Symposium Organized in Paris by Unesco and the International Biological Programme, ed J. Phillipson (Paris: Unesco), 15-31.
  8. Dominati, E., Mackay, A., and Patterson, M. (2010a). "Modelling the provision of ecosystem services from soil natural capital, " in Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science: Soil Solutions for a Changing World, 1-6 August 2010. Congress Symposium 2: Soil Ecosystem Services (Brisbane, QLD), 32-35.
  9. Ehrenfeld, D. W. (1988). "Why put a value on biodiversity?, " in Biodiversity, eds E. O. Wilson and F. M. Peter (Washington, DC: National Academy Press), 212-216.
  10. Laurans, Y., and Aoubid, S. (2011). "L'économie au secours de la biodiversité? La légende des Catskills revisitée, " in Working Paper, Vol. 14. Paris: Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales (IDDRI), Sciences Po.
  11. Lehmann, A., David, S., and Stahr, K. (2008). Technique for Soil Evaluation and Categorization for Natural and Anthropogenic Soils. Series Hohenheimer Bodenkundliche Hefte, Vol. 86. Hohenheim: Universität Hohenheim; Institut für Bodenkunde und Standortstlehre.
  12. Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  13. Odum, E. P. (1959). Fundamentals of Ecology., Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.
  14. Perrings, C. (2014). Our Uncommon Heritage: Biodiversity Change, Ecosystem Services, and Human Wellbeing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of our Time. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
  16. Sagoff, M. (2007). The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law and the Environment, 2nd Edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Takeuchi, K. (2003). Satoyama: The Traditional Rural Landscape of Japan. Tokyo: Springer.
  18. Várallyay, G. (1989). "Land evaluation in Hungary -Scientific problems, practical applications, " in Land Qualities in Space and Time, Symposium Organized by the International Society of Soil Science, eds J. Bouma and A. K. Bregt (Wageningen: Pudoc), 241-252.
  19. Wall, D. H., and Nielsen, U. N. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: Is it the same below ground? Nat. Educ. Knowl. 3, 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.09.027 · DOI
  20. Wollman, N., (ed.) (1962). The Value of Water in Alternative Uses, with Special Application to Water Use in the San Juan and Rio Grande Basins of New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: The University of New Mexico Press.
  21. Wratten, H. Sandhu, R. Cullen, and R. Costanza (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 107-121.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Baveye, P. C., Baveye, J., & Gowdy, J.
Affiliations
  • AgroParisTech (FR)
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Baveye, Philippe C.
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Environmental Science
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2016-06-07
Volume
4
Issue
41
Pages
np
ISSN
2296-665X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fenvs.2016.00041
OpenAlex
W2411887133
Cited by
446
References
417
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3
FWCI
19.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Environmental Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (2015 PERSES_P10652)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Sustainable Development and Environmental Policy
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
Keywords
soil ecosystem services, natural capital, monetary valuation of ecosystem services, soil multifunctionality, soil biodiversity, multi-criteria decision making, Bayesian networks, deliberative decision-making, stakeholder engagement, soil resource management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review