{"title":"基于土壤健康的商业模式:观点和政策影响","authors":"Erik Mathijs, Kato Van Ruymbeke","doi":"10.5194/egusphere-2025-4072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong>Abstract.</strong> Soil health is foundational to ecological sustainability, economic productivity, and societal wellbeing. However, fragmented perspectives on what constitutes \"healthy soil\" hinder coherent policies and business models. This article addresses that gap by offering a value-based framework to guide soil-health initiatives. Building on the Total Economic Value (TEV) framework, six complementary perspectives are identified: (1) productivist, (2) ecosystem services, (3) resilience, (4) non-use value, (5) intrinsic value, and (6) social innovation. These represent different motivations and beneficiaries – from private returns through public goods, to moral duties and collective empowerment. Each perspective implies specific opportunities and challenges for policy design. For instance, direct subsidies may be justified in cases where economic returns are delayed or insufficient, while ecosystem service payments require credible measurement and market mechanisms. Resilience investments often suffer from coordination failures, and intrinsic or social values lack clear economic incentives, requiring legal, educational, or institutional support instead. The article argues that no single policy instrument can serve all these perspectives effectively; rather, a differentiated, multi-perspective strategy is needed to align incentives, avoid over-subsidization, and ensure equitable access and accountability. This framework provides a foundation for designing inclusive and adaptive policies that foster sustainable soil stewardship across diverse stakeholders.","PeriodicalId":48610,"journal":{"name":"Soil","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Soil health-based business models: perspectives and policy implications\",\"authors\":\"Erik Mathijs, Kato Van Ruymbeke\",\"doi\":\"10.5194/egusphere-2025-4072\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<strong>Abstract.</strong> Soil health is foundational to ecological sustainability, economic productivity, and societal wellbeing. However, fragmented perspectives on what constitutes \\\"healthy soil\\\" hinder coherent policies and business models. This article addresses that gap by offering a value-based framework to guide soil-health initiatives. Building on the Total Economic Value (TEV) framework, six complementary perspectives are identified: (1) productivist, (2) ecosystem services, (3) resilience, (4) non-use value, (5) intrinsic value, and (6) social innovation. These represent different motivations and beneficiaries – from private returns through public goods, to moral duties and collective empowerment. Each perspective implies specific opportunities and challenges for policy design. For instance, direct subsidies may be justified in cases where economic returns are delayed or insufficient, while ecosystem service payments require credible measurement and market mechanisms. Resilience investments often suffer from coordination failures, and intrinsic or social values lack clear economic incentives, requiring legal, educational, or institutional support instead. The article argues that no single policy instrument can serve all these perspectives effectively; rather, a differentiated, multi-perspective strategy is needed to align incentives, avoid over-subsidization, and ensure equitable access and accountability. This framework provides a foundation for designing inclusive and adaptive policies that foster sustainable soil stewardship across diverse stakeholders.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Soil\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Soil\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4072\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOIL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soil","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4072","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOIL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Soil health-based business models: perspectives and policy implications
Abstract. Soil health is foundational to ecological sustainability, economic productivity, and societal wellbeing. However, fragmented perspectives on what constitutes "healthy soil" hinder coherent policies and business models. This article addresses that gap by offering a value-based framework to guide soil-health initiatives. Building on the Total Economic Value (TEV) framework, six complementary perspectives are identified: (1) productivist, (2) ecosystem services, (3) resilience, (4) non-use value, (5) intrinsic value, and (6) social innovation. These represent different motivations and beneficiaries – from private returns through public goods, to moral duties and collective empowerment. Each perspective implies specific opportunities and challenges for policy design. For instance, direct subsidies may be justified in cases where economic returns are delayed or insufficient, while ecosystem service payments require credible measurement and market mechanisms. Resilience investments often suffer from coordination failures, and intrinsic or social values lack clear economic incentives, requiring legal, educational, or institutional support instead. The article argues that no single policy instrument can serve all these perspectives effectively; rather, a differentiated, multi-perspective strategy is needed to align incentives, avoid over-subsidization, and ensure equitable access and accountability. This framework provides a foundation for designing inclusive and adaptive policies that foster sustainable soil stewardship across diverse stakeholders.
SoilAgricultural and Biological Sciences-Soil Science
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
2.90%
发文量
44
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍:
SOIL is an international scientific journal dedicated to the publication and discussion of high-quality research in the field of soil system sciences.
SOIL is at the interface between the atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere. SOIL publishes scientific research that contributes to understanding the soil system and its interaction with humans and the entire Earth system. The scope of the journal includes all topics that fall within the study of soil science as a discipline, with an emphasis on studies that integrate soil science with other sciences (hydrology, agronomy, socio-economics, health sciences, atmospheric sciences, etc.).