Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 19, Issue 8, pp 3235–3244 | Cite as

Consideration of soil in urban planning documents—a French case study

  • Anne Blanchart
  • Jean Noël Consalès
  • Geoffroy Séré
  • Christophe SchwartzEmail author
SUITMA 9: Urbanization — Challenges and Opportunities for Soil Functions and Ecosystem Services

Abstract

Purpose

Given their increasing importance, soils should be considered as valuable resources by those involved in urban planning. Indeed, soils are expected to be multifunctional in order both to ensure sustainable development of human societies and to resist major environmental issues. Through the study of planning documents, this article describes the way in which political intentions impact the preservation of soil as an urban resource.

Materials and methods

A lexical analysis was conducted of more than 100 French planning documents. Each of them relates to a specific topic (e.g., soil cover, transport, biodiversity) and to a particular application scale. Tropes© software was used to count the number of times the word “soil” occurs in each document. A distinction was made between “soil” written as a surface area (land use, square meters) and a resource (ecosystem, cubic meters). A further statistical analysis was performed by crossing the results with demographic data and the main characteristics of the documents.

Results and discussion

The results revealed that soil is a subject which is relatively infrequently addressed in French planning documents. Indeed, its index of occurrence reached 0.06% in comparison to “transport” (0.77%). Moreover, “soil” refers both to a surface area (0.035%) and a resource (0.031%). However, this consideration varies from document to another and depends on the given urban area. Finally, the publication date of the document was correlated with the frequency of the use of the word “soil.” These results suggest that the level of consideration of soil, as a complex ecosystem, is moderate and relies mainly on the people who drafted the document.

Conclusions

The frequency of the word “soil” is comparable to those of words as “biodiversity” and “air.” Moreover, “soil” is considered as a living resource in the planning documents. It also appears that the services provided by agricultural and forest soils are well known to policy makers and planning operators (e.g., food and non-food biomass provisioning). In contrast, urban soils are predominantly seen as surface areas to be converted or as a potential threat due to their level of contamination or geotechnical properties.

Keywords

Ecosystem services Lexical analysis Soil resource Urban planning Urban soils 

Notes

Funding information

The authors would like to thank the French Environmental Agency (ADEME) and the Grand Est Region (France) for their financial support.

References

  1. Adelmann GW (1998) Reworking the landscape, Chicago style. Hast Cent Rep 28:6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adhikari K, Hartemink AE (2016) Linking soils to ecosystem services—a global review. Geoderma 262:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrif T, Blanc N, Clergeau P (2011) Trame verte urbaine, un rapport Nature—Urbain entre géographie et écologie. Cybergeo.  https://doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.24862
  4. Blanchart A, Séré G, Cherel J, Warot G, Stas M, Consalès JN, Schwartz C (2018) Towards an operational methodology to optimize ecosystem services provided by urban soils. Landscape Urban Plan 176:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Craul PJ (1992) Urban soil in landscape design. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  6. Escobedo FJ, Kroeger T, Wagner JE (2011) Urban forests and pollution mitigation—analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ Pollut 159:2078–2087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission (2015) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions—A European Agenda on Migration, Brussels. https://www.unodc.org/documents/brussels/News/2017_communication_on_the_european_agenda_on_migration_en.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2017
  8. Gómez-Baggethun E, Barton DN (2013) Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol Econ 86:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. INSEE (2016) INSEE references. https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1906659?sommaire=1906743. Accessed 30 Oct 2017
  10. Jenerette GD, Harlan SL, Stefanov WL, Martin CA (2011) Ecosystem services and urban heat riskscape moderation: water, green spaces, and social inequality in Phoenix, USA. Ecol Appl 21:2637–2651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson MP (2001) Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey of the literature and proposed research agenda. Environ Plan 33:717–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu Z, He C, Zhou Y, Wu J (2014) How much of the world’s land has been urbanized, really? A hierarchical framework for avoiding confusion. Landsc Ecol 29:763–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mantziaras P, Viganò P (2016) Le sol des villes. MetisPresses, vuesDensemble Essais, 256 pGoogle Scholar
  14. Margules CR (1992) The Wog Wog habitat fragmentation experiment. Environ Conserv 19:316–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Millennium ecosystem assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being—synthesis. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Morel JL, Chenu C, Lorenz K (2015) Ecosystem services provided by soils of urban, industrial, traffic, mining, and military areas (SUITMAs). J Soils Sediments 15:1659–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Seto KC, Güneralpa B, Hutyrac LR (2012) Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:16083–16088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Taylor N (2007) Urban planning theory since 1945. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. TEEB (2011) Manual for cities: ecosystem services in urban management. In: Berghöfer A (ed) James Blignaut, Martin de Wit, Hugo van Zyl. www.teebweb.org
  20. United Nations (2014) Plus de la moitié de la population mondiale vit dans les villes. http://www.un.org/fr/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanization-prospects.html. Accessed 12 October 2017
  21. Urban SMS (2008) Bodenmanagement-Strategie für städtische Räume. INTERREG IV B der Europäischen Union Programm. Zentraleuropäischer Kooperationsraum (Central Europe)Google Scholar
  22. Vanoudheusden E, Blanc C (2014) Les sols dans la gestion des aménagements urbains. Géosciences, BRGM 18:40–47Google Scholar
  23. Yoshida F (2002) The economics of waste and pollution management in Japan. Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-67032-2, pp163-183

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire Sols et EnvironnementUniversité de Lorraine, INRANancyFrance
  2. 2.TELEMME, CNRS, UMR 7303Aix Marseille UnivAix-en-ProvenceFrance
  3. 3.Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maitrise de l’Energie (ADEME)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations