A Framework to Consider Soil Ecosystem Services in Territorial Planning

Fossey, Maxime; Angers, Denis A.; Bustany, Céline; Cudennec, Christophe; Durand, Patrick; Gascuel‐Odoux, Chantal; Jaffrézic, Anne; Pérès, Guénola; Besse, Christelle; Walter, Christian

doi:10.3389/fenvs.2020.00028

Cited by 30 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first purpose attributed to ESs and mentioned in more than half of the research concerns the support they provide for the decision-making process. The use of the concept of ESs is perceived as an element that can improve and facilitate discussion between stakeholders, planners, and managers [40] as a "more collaborative method" [41] that is "crucial to perform[ing] decision-relevant assessment[s] and support[ing] sustainable regional governance at multiple scales" [42].…”

Section: Overview Of the Purposes Assigned To Ess For Their Integration Into Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of these articles frame ESs as a valuable means of "setting the scene", formulating an environmental framework that takes ESs into account that proves helpful in the preparatory phase of a planning process, also using ESs mapping and assessment to demonstrate how the spatial distribution of ESs can support the decision-making process by establishing planning priorities. Some of them focus on the added value of ESs as a knowledge base, using an assessment framework to make soil ESs understandable and usable by actors of territorial planning [42], to establish links between socio-economic variables and ecosystem service provision for urban planning [48], to understand the impact of planning and management decisions [49,50], or to produce useful knowledge for local practitoners and operationalizing the full spectrum of the ecosystem service concept for strategic sustainability planning and related decision-support contexts [51].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ecosystem Services for Planning: A Generic Recommendation or a Real Framework? Insights from a Literature Review

Ronchi

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, the concept of Ecosystem Services (ESs) has undergone a process of mainstreaming. It has been promoted in multiple policy documents and investigated in a growing number of studies addressing the functioning, assessment and management of ESs. Despite a general recommendation to integrate ESs into planning processes, this step remains highly critical yet far from complete. This paper explores the feasibility of the recommended uses of ESs for planning purposes by examining the needs of planners and decision-makers. A systematic literature review was conducted analysing different studies to overcome the limited adoption of ESs in planning verifying their operationalisation for planning practices. The paper classifies different purpose(s) assigned to ESs supporting the planning process. The results show that few experiments have adopted a step-by-step procedure facilitating the integration of ESs into planning and highlighting their added value in each phase of the planning process. In these cases, an ES-based Green Infrastructure has allowed for their integration into planning, also adopting a multi-scale spatial dimension. More practical experiments on how a planning process works are needed to operationalise the ESs concept for planning purposes, also reinforcing the role of the Strategic Environmental Assessment that is still marginal.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of the Purposes Assigned To Ess For Their Integration Into Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem Services for Planning: A Generic Recommendation or a Real Framework? Insights from a Literature Review

Ronchi

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ES framework is increasingly being used to address environmental concerns (e.g., global warming, climate change, etc. ), but because of "the difficulty in relating soil properties to ES, soil ES are still not fully considered in the territorial planning decision process" [16]. According to Fossey et al, 2020 [16], soil databases play an essential role in assessing ES/ED in territorial planning.…”

Section: Pathways To Increased C Sequestrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…), but because of "the difficulty in relating soil properties to ES, soil ES are still not fully considered in the territorial planning decision process" [16]. According to Fossey et al, 2020 [16], soil databases play an essential role in assessing ES/ED in territorial planning. For sustainable soil C management decisions at the state level and its counties, it is critical to determine soil C and the distribution of its social costs within the state overall and by individual counties linked to biophysical units (e.g., soil orders).…”

Section: Pathways To Increased C Sequestrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil Carbon Regulating Ecosystem Services in the State of South Carolina, USA

Mikhailova

Zurqani

Post

et al. 2021

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable management of soil carbon (C) at the state level requires valuation of soil C regulating ecosystem services (ES) and disservices (ED). The objective of this study was to assess the value of regulating ES from soil organic carbon (SOC), soil inorganic carbon (SIC), and total soil carbon (TSC) stocks, based on the concept of the avoided social cost of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for the state of South Carolina (SC) in the United States of America (U.S.A.) by soil order, soil depth (0–200 cm), region and county using information from the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database. The total estimated monetary mid-point value for TSC in the state of South Carolina was $124.36B (i.e., $124.36 billion U.S. dollars, where B = billion = 109), $107.14B for SOC, and $17.22B for SIC. Soil orders with the highest midpoint value for SOC were: Ultisols ($64.35B), Histosols ($11.22B), and Inceptisols ($10.31B). Soil orders with the highest midpoint value for SIC were: Inceptisols ($5.91B), Entisols ($5.53B), and Alfisols ($5.0B). Soil orders with the highest midpoint value for TSC were: Ultisols ($64.35B), Inceptisols ($16.22B), and Entisols ($14.65B). The regions with the highest midpoint SOC values were: Pee Dee ($34.24B), Low Country ($32.17B), and Midlands ($29.24B). The regions with the highest midpoint SIC values were: Low Country ($5.69B), Midlands ($5.55B), and Pee Dee ($4.67B). The regions with the highest midpoint TSC values were: Low Country ($37.86B), Pee Dee ($36.91B), and Midlands ($34.79B). The counties with the highest midpoint SOC values were Colleton ($5.44B), Horry ($5.37B), and Berkeley ($4.12B). The counties with the highest midpoint SIC values were Charleston ($1.46B), Georgetown ($852.81M, where M = million = 106), and Horry ($843.18M). The counties with the highest midpoint TSC values were Horry ($6.22B), Colleton ($6.02B), and Georgetown ($4.87B). Administrative areas (e.g., counties, regions) combined with pedodiversity concepts can provide useful information to design cost-efficient policies to manage soil carbon regulating ES at the state level.

show abstract

“…The main conditions include acidity, unavailability of micronutrients, low carbon content (Jayne et al, 2014), and consequently low cation exchange and water holding capacities (Bationo et al, 2006;Jayne et al, 2014). Thus, the use of unsustainable agricultural practices quickly leads to soil and land degradation (Costantini et al, 2016;Fossey et al, 2020) to the extent that applying mineral fertilizers alone becomes non-viable (Pieri, 1989;Bationo et al, 2006). These factors further contribute to chronic food and nutritional insecurity in West Africa (Pomati and Nandy, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-Actors' Co-Implementation of Climate-Smart Village Approach in West Africa: Achievements and Lessons Learnt

Bayala¹,

Ky-Dembele²,

Dayamba

et al. 2021

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change and variability are significant challenges for the environment and food security worldwide. Development strategies focusing simultaneously on adaptive farming, productivity, and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions-known as climate-smart agriculture (CSA) strategies-are key to responding to these challenges. For almost a decade, within the framework of Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), World Agroforestry (ICRAF), and its partners have been using Participatory Action Research (PAR) to fully engage key stakeholders in co-creating such CSA development strategies. This includes the testing of Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) CSA scalability options. The multidisciplinary teams include the National Research and Extension Systems (NARES), national meteorological services (NMS), non-profit organizations (NGOs), and local radio programs, among others. The CCAFS-West Africa Program, World Agroforestry-West and Central Africa (ICRAF-WCA), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), University of Reading, and Centre Régional de Formation et d'Application en Agro-météorologie et Hydrologie Opérationnelle (AGRHYMET) provide technical backstopping to the national teams. Climate information (CI) was used as an entry point to inform the development of CSA technologies and practices within Climate-Smart Villages (CSV). This groundwork has led to a greater understanding of three critical factors for successful CSV implementation: (1) Building strong partnerships to co-design and develop agricultural systems that improve ecosystem and population resilience, (2) Key stakeholders (researchers, farmers, development agents, and students) capacity strengthening through vocational and academic training, and (3) Using CI for livelihood planning at all scales. These three factors support more effective identification and testing of agricultural technologies and practices addressing climate variability and change at plot, community, and landscape levels. This paper discusses the PAR-CSA methodology and parameters for evaluation, including biophysical and social change. Keys to success, including communication, knowledge sharing tools, and scalability are also discussed. Finally, future opportunities for improvement are presented, including knowledge product development, CSA policy and investment planning, capacity building, further engagement of the private sector, and additional research on existing practices and tools.

show abstract

A Framework to Consider Soil Ecosystem Services in Territorial Planning

Cited by 30 publications

References 68 publications

Ecosystem Services for Planning: A Generic Recommendation or a Real Framework? Insights from a Literature Review

Ecosystem Services for Planning: A Generic Recommendation or a Real Framework? Insights from a Literature Review

Soil Carbon Regulating Ecosystem Services in the State of South Carolina, USA

Multi-Actors' Co-Implementation of Climate-Smart Village Approach in West Africa: Achievements and Lessons Learnt

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About