IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v58y2022ics2212041622000894.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The geosystem services concept – What is it and can it support subsurface planning?

Author

Listed:
  • Frisk, Emrik Lundin
  • Volchko, Yevheniya
  • Sandström, Olof Taromi
  • Söderqvist, Tore
  • Ericsson, Lars O.
  • Mossmark, Fredrik
  • Lindhe, Andreas
  • Blom, Göran
  • Lång, Lars-Ove
  • Carlsson, Christel
  • Norrman, Jenny

Abstract

The subsurface is a multifunctional natural resource. However, a mindset of “out of sight, out of mind” and a first-come-first-served principle are prevalent when accessing these resources, compromising fair intergenerational and intragenerational distribution and sustainable development. As with the ecosystem services (ES) concept, which acknowledges the contribution of the living part of nature to human well-being, the concept of geosystem services (GS) has been suggested as a way to highlight abiotic services and services provided by the subsurface. The overall aim of this study was to review current definitions of GS and their categorisation, and to suggest how the concept of GS can support subsurface planning. A systematic literature review on GS was carried out following the PRISMA protocol drawing from the Scopus database. The emerging picture from the reviewed articles is that the GS concept is both one of novelty and one currently showing inconsistency, with two prominent definitions: A) GS are abiotic services that are the direct result of the planet’s geodiversity, independent of the interactions with biotic nature – there is no differentiation between suprasurface and subsurface features, and B) GS provide benefits specifically resulting from the subsurface. Thirty-one out of thirty-nine GS listed in the reviewed literature are included in the abiotic extension of the common ES framework CICES v5.1, but some essential services are omitted. A unified definition of GS is desirable to build a common framework for classifying and describing GS, potentially following the CICES structure for ES. Such a framework can support systematic inclusion of GS in planning processes and contribute to improved subsurface planning. In planning practice, there are examples of important GS that are already included under the ES umbrella because planners are aware of their importance but a comprehensive framework to handle these services is lacking.

Suggested Citation

  • Frisk, Emrik Lundin & Volchko, Yevheniya & Sandström, Olof Taromi & Söderqvist, Tore & Ericsson, Lars O. & Mossmark, Fredrik & Lindhe, Andreas & Blom, Göran & Lång, Lars-Ove & Carlsson, Christel & Nor, 2022. "The geosystem services concept – What is it and can it support subsurface planning?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:58:y:2022:i:c:s2212041622000894
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101493
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041622000894
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101493?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    2. Volchko, Yevheniya & Norrman, Jenny & Ericsson, Lars O. & Nilsson, Kristina L. & Markstedt, Anders & Öberg, Maria & Mossmark, Fredrik & Bobylev, Nikolai & Tengborg, Per, 2020. "Subsurface planning: Towards a common understanding of the subsurface as a multifunctional resource," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    3. van Ree, C.C.D.F. & van Beukering, P.J.H. & Boekestijn, J., 2017. "Geosystem services: A hidden link in ecosystem management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 58-69.
    4. George S. Webster, 1914. "Subterranean Street Planning," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 51(1), pages 200-207, January.
    5. Costanza, Robert & d'Arge, Ralph & de Groot, Rudolf & Farber, Stephen & Grasso, Monica & Hannon, Bruce & Limburg, Karin & Naeem, Shahid & O'Neill, Robert V. & Paruelo, Jose, 1998. "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-15, April.
    6. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    7. Fransje L. Hooimeijer & Linda Maring, 2018. "The significance of the subsurface in urban renewal," Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 303-328, July.
    8. van der Meulen, E.S. & Braat, L.C. & Brils, J.M., 2016. "Abiotic flows should be inherent part of ecosystem services classification," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 1-5.
    9. Wrighton, C.E. & Bee, E.J. & Mankelow, J.M., 2014. "The development and implementation of mineral safeguarding policies at national and local levels in the United Kingdom," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 160-170.
    10. Ainscough, Jacob & de Vries Lentsch, Aster & Metzger, Marc & Rounsevell, Mark & Schröter, Matthias & Delbaere, Ben & de Groot, Rudolf & Staes, Jan, 2019. "Navigating pluralism: Understanding perceptions of the ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Smith, A.C. & Harrison, P.A. & Pérez Soba, M. & Archaux, F. & Blicharska, M. & Egoh, B.N. & Erős, T. & Fabrega Domenech, N. & György, Á.I. & Haines-Young, R. & Li, S. & Lommelen, E. & Meiresonne, L. &, 2017. "How natural capital delivers ecosystem services: A typology derived from a systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 111-126.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Broome, James David & Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2024. "Heavenly lights: An exploratory review of auroral ecosystem services and disservices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marie Balková & Lucie Kubalíková & Marcela Prokopová & Petr Sedlák & Aleš Bajer, 2021. "Ecosystem Services of Vegetation Features as the Multifunction Anti-Erosion Measures in the Czech Republic in 2019 and Its 30-Year Prediction," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Volchko, Yevheniya & Norrman, Jenny & Ericsson, Lars O. & Nilsson, Kristina L. & Markstedt, Anders & Öberg, Maria & Mossmark, Fredrik & Bobylev, Nikolai & Tengborg, Per, 2020. "Subsurface planning: Towards a common understanding of the subsurface as a multifunctional resource," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    3. Broome, James David & Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2024. "Heavenly lights: An exploratory review of auroral ecosystem services and disservices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    4. Lucie Kubalíková, 2020. "Cultural Ecosystem Services of Geodiversity: A Case Study from Stránská skála (Brno, Czech Republic)," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15, March.
    5. Hendrawan, Dienda C P & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Oil Palm Smallholder Farmers' Livelihood Resilience and Decision Making in Replanting," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322441, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    7. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    8. Lucie Kubalíková & Aleš Bajer & Marie Balková & Karel Kirchner & Ivo Machar, 2022. "Geodiversity Action Plans as a Tool for Developing Sustainable Tourism and Environmental Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, May.
    9. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    10. Muluberhan Biedemariam & Emiru Birhane & Biadgilgn Demissie & Tewodros Tadesse & Girmay Gebresamuel & Solomon Habtu, 2022. "Ecosystem Service Values as Related to Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Ethiopia: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-21, December.
    11. Watson, Stephen C.L. & Paterson, David M. & Queirós, Ana M. & Rees, Andrew P. & Stephens, Nicholas & Widdicombe, Stephen & Beaumont, Nicola J., 2016. "A conceptual framework for assessing the ecosystem service of waste remediation: In the marine environment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 69-81.
    12. Maund, Phoebe R. & Irvine, Katherine N. & Dallimer, Martin & Fish, Robert & Austen, Gail E. & Davies, Zoe G., 2020. "Do ecosystem service frameworks represent people’s values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    13. Ivo Horák & Petr Marada, 2022. "Economic Evaluation of the Selected Ecologically Significant Element in Agriculture," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 70(4-5), pages 295-306.
    14. Hetemäki, L. & D'Amato, D. & Giurca, A. & Hurmekoski, E., 2024. "Synergies and trade-offs in the European forest bioeconomy research: State of the art and the way forward," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    15. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    16. Prévost, Benoît & Rivaud, Audrey, 2018. "The World Bank’s environmental strategies: Assessing the influence of a biased use of New Institutional Economics on legal issues," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 370-380.
    17. Chalkiadakis, Charis & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Kraak, Menno-Jan, 2022. "Ecosystem service flows: A systematic literature review of marine systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    18. Nápoles-Vértiz, Sonia & Caro-Borrero, Angela, 2024. "Conceptual diversity and application of ecosystem services and disservices: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    19. Balaguer, Laura Pereira & Garcia, Maria da Glória Motta & Reverte, Fernanda Coyado & Ribeiro, Lígia Maria de Almeida Leite, 2023. "To what extent are ecosystem services provided by geodiversity affected by anthropogenic impacts? A quantitative study in Caraguatatuba, Southeast coast of Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    20. van Ree, C.C.D.F. & van Beukering, P.J.H. & Boekestijn, J., 2017. "Geosystem services: A hidden link in ecosystem management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 58-69.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:58:y:2022:i:c:s2212041622000894. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.