IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v90y2020ics026483771931316x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subsurface planning: Towards a common understanding of the subsurface as a multifunctional resource

Author

Listed:
  • Volchko, Yevheniya
  • Norrman, Jenny
  • Ericsson, Lars O.
  • Nilsson, Kristina L.
  • Markstedt, Anders
  • Öberg, Maria
  • Mossmark, Fredrik
  • Bobylev, Nikolai
  • Tengborg, Per

Abstract

In response to powerful trends in technology, resource and land supply and demand, socioeconomics and geopolitics, cities are likely to increase use of the subsurface in the near future. Indeed, the subsurface and its appropriate use have been put forward as being of crucial importance if we are to achieve resilient and sustainable cities. In recent years, quite apart from being seen primarily as a construction basis to provide physical space for infrastructure and to create a better surface living environment, the subsurface has been recognised as a multifunctional natural resource, one which provides physical space, water, energy, materials, habitats for ecosystems, support for surface life, and a repository for cultural heritage and geological archives. Currently, the subsurface is often utilised according to the “first-come-first-served” principle, which hinders possibilities to take strategic decisions on prioritisation and optimisation of competing subsurface uses, as well as fair inter- and intragenerational distribution of limited natural resources. Taking a broad international perspective, this paper investigates the subsurface as a multifunctional resource from five focal points: (1) what professionals with different backgrounds mean when using different terms related to the subsurface; (2) how professionals describe the subsurface and its multiple resources, functions and services; (3) how planning of subsurface use is supported in policy and regulations; (4) how the subsurface is included in the planning process; and (5) frameworks that can support decision-making on responsible use of the subsurface. The study reveals that the subsurface must be recognised (not only by scientists but also by decision- and policy-makers and other stakeholders) as a precious and multifunctional resource requiring careful planning and sensitive management in accordance with its potential and its value to society. Utilisation of the different subsurface functions to yield services requires careful planning and a framework to support decision-makers in achieving a balance between utilisation and preservation, and between the subsurface functions themselves in the case of outright utilisation. Further, to facilitate the necessary change towards transdisciplinary work settings in the planning process and form a platform for knowledge exchange and capacity building, there is an urgent need for a common language, i.e. mutually understandable terminology, and a common understanding, i.e. an all-inclusive view on the subsurface as a complex multifunctional resource.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:90:y:2020:i:c:s026483771931316x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104316
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483771931316X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104316?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Michael R. Doyle & Philippe Thalmann & Aurèle Parriaux, 2016. "Underground Potential for Urban Sustainability: Mapping Resources and Their Interactions with the Deep City Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Van Ree, C.C.D.F. & van Beukering, P.J.H., 2016. "Geosystem services: A concept in support of sustainable development of the subsurface," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 30-36.
    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. Peng Dai & Song Han & Guannan Fu & Hui Fu & Yanjun Wang, 2023. "Optimization Path of Metro Commercial Passageway Based on Computational Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-20, July.
    2. von der Tann, Loretta & Ritter, Stefan & Hale, Sarah & Langford, Jenny & Salazar, Sean, 2021. "From urban underground space (UUS) to sustainable underground urbanism (SUU): Shifting the focus in urban underground scholarship," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    3. Baoshun Wang & Yanfang Liu & Zhaomin Tong & Rui An & Jiwei Xu, 2023. "Spatiotemporal Dynamic Characteristics of Land Use Intensity in Rapidly Urbanizing Areas from Urban Underground Space Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-15, August.
    4. Stephanie Bricker & Jan Jelenek & Peter van der Keur & Francesco La Vigna & Sophie O’Connor & Grzegorz Ryzynski & Martin Smith & Jeroen Schokker & Guri Venvik, 2024. "Geoscience for Cities: Delivering Europe’s Sustainable Urban Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Yuting Wu & Hongyan Wen & Meichen Fu, 2024. "A Review of Research on the Value Evaluation of Urban Underground Space," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-28, April.
    6. Soo-yeon Seo & Byunghee Lee & Jongsung Won, 2020. "Comparative Analysis of Economic Impacts of Sustainable Vertical Extension Methods for Existing Underground Spaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, January.
    7. 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).
    8. Soo-Yeon Seo & Byunghee Lee & Jongsung Won, 2021. "Constructability Analyses of Vertical Extension Methods for Existing Underground Spaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-20, March.
    9. Ruban, Dmitry A. & Mikhailenko, Anna V. & Yashalova, Natalia N., 2022. "Valuable geoheritage resources: Potential versus exploitation," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    10. Hámor-Vidó, Mária & Hámor, Tamás & Czirok, Lili, 2021. "Underground space, the legal governance of a critical resource in circular economy," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Dionysia-Georgia Perperidou & Konstantinos Sigizis & Agkronilnta Chotza, 2021. "3D Underground Property Rights of Transportation Infrastructures: Case Study of Piraeus Metro Station, Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-17, November.
    13. Karl‐Heinz Gaudry & Danilo Ibarra & Carla Carabajo & Katty Marin, 2022. "Interdependencies between spatial planning and the mining laissez‐passer in cities: Policy analysis of the case of Ecuador," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 258-278, April.

    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. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Czúcz, Bálint & Arany, Ildikó & Potschin-Young, Marion & Bereczki, Krisztina & Kertész, Miklós & Kiss, Márton & Aszalós, Réka & Haines-Young, Roy, 2018. "Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 145-157.
    6. 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).
    7. Zheng Zang, 2021. "Conceptual Model of Ecosystem Service Flows from Carbon Dioxide to Blue Carbon in Coastal Wetlands: An Empirical Study Based on Yancheng, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-12, April.
    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. Toni Eerola, 2022. "Territories of Contention: The Importance of Project Location in Mining-Related Disputes in Finland from the Geosystem Services Perspective," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, November.
    10. Jonathan P. Reeves & Conor H. D. John & Kevin A. Wood & Phoebe R. Maund, 2021. "A Qualitative Analysis of UK Wetland Visitor Centres as a Health Resource," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-25, August.
    11. Schetke, Sophie & Lee, Heera & Graf, Wanda & Lautenbach, Sven, 2018. "Application of the ecosystem service concept for climate protection in Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 294-305.
    12. Oleg Todorov & Kari Alanne & Markku Virtanen & Risto Kosonen, 2020. "Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage (ATES) for District Heating and Cooling: A Novel Modeling Approach Applied in a Case Study of a Finnish Urban District," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-19, May.
    13. Van Ree, C.C.D.F. & van Beukering, P.J.H., 2016. "Geosystem services: A concept in support of sustainable development of the subsurface," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 30-36.
    14. Bayer, Peter & Attard, Guillaume & Blum, Philipp & Menberg, Kathrin, 2019. "The geothermal potential of cities," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 17-30.
    15. O’Garra, Tanya, 2017. "Economic value of ecosystem services, minerals and oil in a melting Arctic: A preliminary assessment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 180-186.
    16. Raphael Ocelli Pinheiro & Luiza F. A. de Paula & Marco Giardino, 2022. "Agricultural Heritage: Contrasting National and International Programs in Brazil and Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-24, May.
    17. von der Tann, Loretta & Ritter, Stefan & Hale, Sarah & Langford, Jenny & Salazar, Sean, 2021. "From urban underground space (UUS) to sustainable underground urbanism (SUU): Shifting the focus in urban underground scholarship," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Tammi, Ilpo & Mustajärvi, Kaisa & Rasinmäki, Jussi, 2017. "Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into regional planning and development," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 329-344.
    19. Annaêl Barnes & Alexandre Ickowicz & Jean-Daniel Cesaro & Paulo Salgado & Véronique Rayot & Sholpan Koldasbekova & Simon Taugourdeau, 2023. "Improving Biodiversity Offset Schemes through the Identification of Ecosystem Services at a Landscape Level," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-25, January.
    20. Meishu Wang & Hui Gong, 2018. "Not-in-My-Backyard: Legislation Requirements and Economic Analysis for Developing Underground Wastewater Treatment Plant in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-10, October.

    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:lauspo:v:90:y:2020:i:c:s026483771931316x. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.