IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i10p3807-d177270.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Justifying Soil Protection and Sustainable Soil Management: Creation-Ethical, Legal and Economic Considerations

Author

Listed:
  • Bernd Hansjürgens

    (Department of Economics, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, Permoserstraße 15, 04315 Leipzig, Germany)

  • Andreas Lienkamp

    (Institut für Katholische Theologie, University Osnabrück, Schloßstraße 4, 49074 Osnabrück, Germany)

  • Stefan Möckel

    (Department of Environmental Law, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, Permoserstraße 15, 04315 Leipzig, Germany)

Abstract

Fertile soils form an important basis for survival for humans, but also for animals, plants and ecosystems, on which all terrestrial organisms rely. Soil is not only of central importance to the global provision of food and in the fight against hunger; climate, biological diversity and water bodies are also highly dependent on soil quality. Soil conservation is therefore a decisive factor in the survival of humanity. Pope Francis also emphasized this in his encyclical “Laudato si’”. However, increasing pressure is being exerted on soils, which poses an enormous challenge to the international community and thus also to the church. Against this background, in this article, which is based on a Memorandum of the German Bishops’ Working Group on Ecological Issues, arguments and justifications for soil protection and sustainable soil management are developed from different angles—from a creation-ethical, a legal, and an economic perspective. All three perspectives point in the same direction, namely that in the use of soils public interests that serve the society and the environment should be given priority over private interests. These arguments may serve as an important reference point in political and societal debates about soils, and may support strategies for sustainable soil management.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernd Hansjürgens & Andreas Lienkamp & Stefan Möckel, 2018. "Justifying Soil Protection and Sustainable Soil Management: Creation-Ethical, Legal and Economic Considerations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-12, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3807-:d:177270
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3807/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3807/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wolfram Mauser & Gernot Klepper & Florian Zabel & Ruth Delzeit & Tobias Hank & Birgitta Putzenlechner & Alvaro Calzadilla, 2015. "Global biomass production potentials exceed expected future demand without the need for cropland expansion," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Bartosz Bartkowski & Bernd Hansjürgens & Stefan Möckel & Stephan Bartke, 2018. "Institutional Economics of Agricultural Soil Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    3. Vatn, Arild, 2005. "Rationality, institutions and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 203-217, November.
    4. Arild Vatn, 2005. "Institutions and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2826.
    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. Jan Diek van Mansvelt & Paul C. Struik & Arie Bos & Willem Daub & Diederick Sprangers & Mara van den Berg & Marieke Vingerhoets & Kees Zoeteman, 2021. "Changing Ground: Handling Tensions between Production Ethics and Environmental Ethics of Agricultural Soils," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Katharina Helming & Katrin Daedlow & Bernd Hansjürgens & Thomas Koellner, 2018. "Assessment and Governance of Sustainable Soil Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, November.
    3. Stankovics, Petra & Montanarella, Luca & Kassai, Piroska & Tóth, Gergely & Tóth, Zoltán, 2020. "The interrelations of land ownership, soil protection and privileges of capital in the aspect of land take," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Elena A. Mikhailova & Hamdi A. Zurqani & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & Gregory C. Post, 2021. "Soil Diversity (Pedodiversity) and Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-34, March.

    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. Bobulescu, Roxana & Fritscheova, Aneta, 2021. "Convivial innovation in sustainable communities: Four cases in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    2. Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos & Plumecocq, Gaël, 2015. "Legitimizing farmers' new knowledge, learning and practices through communicative action: Application of an agro-environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 86-96.
    3. Stefani, Gianluca & Lombardi, Ginevra Virginia & Romano, Donato & Cei, Leonardo, 2017. "Grass Root Collective Action for Territorially Integrated Food Supply Chains: A Case Study from Tuscany," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 8(4), October.
    4. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    5. Kvakkestad, Valborg, 2009. "Institutions and the R&D of GM-crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2688-2695, August.
    6. Trædal, Leif Tore & Vedeld, Pål Olav & Pétursson, Jón Geir, 2016. "Analyzing the transformations of forest PES in Vietnam: Implications for REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 109-117.
    7. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
    8. Vatn, Arild, 2009. "An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2207-2215, June.
    9. Padmanabhan, Martina, 2011. "Women and men as conservers, users and managers of agrobiodiversity," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 968-976.
    10. Clive L Spash, 2009. "Social Ecological Economics," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-08, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    11. Røpke, Inge, 2020. "Econ 101—In need of a sustainability transition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    12. Spash, Clive L., 2007. "Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 690-699, September.
    13. Stefani, G. & Lombardi, G.V. & Romano, D. & Cei, L., 2017. "Green Root Collective Action for Conservation of Agri-Bio Diversity: a Case Study in Tuscany," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2017(1), June.
    14. Dimitrios Zikos, 2020. "Revisiting the Role of Institutions in Transformative Contexts: Institutional Change and Conflicts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, October.
    15. Jean-David Gerber, St phane Nahrath, 2013. "Beitrag zur Entwicklung eines Ressourcenansatzes der Nachhaltigkeit," Diskussionsschriften credresearchpaper03, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft - CRED.
    16. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 105-131, January.
    17. Lars Hein & Pete Roberts & Lucia Gonzalez, 2016. "Valuing a Statistical Life Year in Relation to Clean Air," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(04), pages 1-24, December.
    18. Roel Plant & Spike Boydell & Jason Prior & Joanne Chong & Aleta Lederwasch, 2017. "From liability to opportunity: An institutional approach towards value-based land remediation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 197-220, March.
    19. Scheidel, Arnim & Farrell, Katharine N., 2015. "Small-scale cooperative banking and the production of capital: Reflecting on the role of institutional agreements in supporting rural livelihood in Kampot, Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 230-240.
    20. Leslie Carnoye & Rita Lopes, 2015. "Participatory Environmental Valuation: A Comparative Analysis of Four Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-23, July.

    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:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3807-:d:177270. 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.