IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i12p2178-d990218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing Management Practices in: “Living Labs” That Result in Healthy Soils for the Future, Contributing to Sustainable Development

Author

Listed:
  • J. Bouma

    (Department of Soil Science, Wageningen University & Research, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands
    Both authors are retired.)

  • C. P. Veerman

    (Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Tilburg University, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands
    Both authors are retired.)

Abstract

There is general agreement on the need for sustainable development, but the concept has remained rather vague until seventeen specific goals (SDGs) were approved by the UN Assembly in 2015, including targets and indicators. The EU followed this example by introducing their Green Deal in 2019. Soils play a very important role in realizing these goals by the intended year of 2030 in terms of (amongst other less directly related goals) contributing to food production (SDG2: “zero hunger”), good health and wellbeing (SDG3), water quality (SDG6: “clean water and sanitation”), sustainable production (SDG12: ”sustainable consumption and production”), carbon capture and greenhouse gas emission (SDG13: “climate action”) and soil health and biodiversity preservation (SDG15: “life on land”). Of course, not only soils but many other scientific disciplines contribute to achieving the SDGs, and the EU Mission Board for Soil Health and Food has, therefore, defined soil health in terms of specific soil contributions to interdisciplinary ecosystem services: “ soils supporting ecosystem services in line with the SDGs and the Green Deal ”. Restricting attention in this paper to soils, the Board has defined six indicators for soil health that allow an integrated assessment of the role of soils, reported in this paper in a slightly modified version: presence of soil pollutants, organic matter content, structure, biodiversity, nutrient content and water regimes. Currently, different indicator systems are being used while soil research is rather fragmented, as future environmental policies are still being discussed. The research and policy arenas face major challenges at this point in time to rise to the occasion by defining clear operational assessment procedures for soil health that will, above all, be accepted and internalized by land users, of which farmers manage the largest land area. Only then can implementation be realized in practice. An effort is needed to test the vast body of existing techniques and expertise and focus new research on gaps that appear. This is discussed in detail for the six indicators distinguished, and particular attention is paid to defining threshold values, separating the “good” from the “not yet good enough”. New ways have to be explored to achieve real and productive interactions between scientists and stakeholders, including farmers. The establishment of Living Labs aimed at realizing successful Lighthouses is, therefore, seen as an effective way for scientists to work with farmers in developing innovative management schemes, including the role of soils, expressed in terms of indicators and thresholds for soil health. Such procedures should be the basis for future rules and regulations, where a “one-out, all-out” principle can be used for the various indicators to avoid the current complex discussions about deriving a single, overall soil health indicator.

Suggested Citation

  • J. Bouma & C. P. Veerman, 2022. "Developing Management Practices in: “Living Labs” That Result in Healthy Soils for the Future, Contributing to Sustainable Development," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:12:p:2178-:d:990218
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/12/2178/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/12/2178/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Viscarra Rossel, Raphael A. & Bouma, Johan, 2016. "Soil sensing: A new paradigm for agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 71-74.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lobell, David B., 2020. "Viewpoint: Principles and priorities for one CGIAR," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    2. Gardezi, Maaz & Abuayyash, Halimeh & Adler, Paul R. & Alvez, Juan P. & Anjum, Rubaina & Badireddy, Appala Raju & Brugler, Skye & Carcamo, Pablo & Clay, David & Dadkhah, Ali & Emery, Mary & Faulkner, J, 2024. "The role of living labs in cultivating inclusive and responsible innovation in precision agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    3. Iordanis Parikoglou & Grigorios Emvalomatis & Doris Läpple & Fiona Thorne & Michael Wallace, 2024. "The contribution of innovation to farm-level productivity," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 239-255, October.
    4. Lajoie-O'Malley, Alana & Bronson, Kelly & van der Burg, Simone & Klerkx, Laurens, 2020. "The future(s) of digital agriculture and sustainable food systems: An analysis of high-level policy documents," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    5. Alireza Abdollahi & Karim Rejeb & Abderahman Rejeb & Mohamed M. Mostafa & Suhaiza Zailani, 2021. "Wireless Sensor Networks in Agriculture: Insights from Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-22, October.
    6. Schattman, Rachel E. & Jean, Haley & Faulkner, Joshua W. & Maden, Rebecca & McKeag, Lisa & Nelson, Katie Campbell & Grubinger, Vernon & Burnett, Stephanie & Erich, M. Susan & Ohno, Tsutomu, 2023. "Effects of irrigation scheduling approaches on soil moisture and vegetable production in the Northeastern U.S.A," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).
    7. Hassan P. Ebrahimi & R. Sandra Schillo & Kelly Bronson, 2021. "Systematic Stakeholder Inclusion in Digital Agriculture: A Framework and Application to Canada," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.

    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:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:12:p:2178-:d:990218. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.