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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Data not shown
References
Adelmann GW (1998) Reworking the landscape, Chicago style. Hast Cent Rep 28:6–11
Adhikari K, Hartemink AE (2016) Linking soils to ecosystem services—a global review. Geoderma 262:101–111
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
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 176:1–9
Craul PJ (1992) Urban soil in landscape design. John Wiley & Sons
Escobedo FJ, Kroeger T, Wagner JE (2011) Urban forests and pollution mitigation—analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ Pollut 159:2078–2087
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
Gómez-Baggethun E, Barton DN (2013) Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol Econ 86:235–245
INSEE (2016) INSEE references. https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1906659?sommaire=1906743. Accessed 30 Oct 2017
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 21:2637–2651
Johnson MP (2001) Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey of the literature and proposed research agenda. Environ Plan 33:717–735
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 29:763–771
Mantziaras P, Viganò P (2016) Le sol des villes. MetisPresses, vuesDensemble Essais, 256 p
Margules CR (1992) The Wog Wog habitat fragmentation experiment. Environ Conserv 19:316–325
Millennium ecosystem assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being—synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC
Morel JL, Chenu C, Lorenz K (2015) Ecosystem services provided by soils of urban, industrial, traffic, mining, and military areas (SUITMAs). J Soils Sediments 15:1659–1666
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 109:16083–16088
Taylor N (2007) Urban planning theory since 1945. Sage, London
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
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
Urban SMS (2008) Bodenmanagement-Strategie für städtische Räume. INTERREG IV B der Europäischen Union Programm. Zentraleuropäischer Kooperationsraum (Central Europe)
Vanoudheusden E, Blanc C (2014) Les sols dans la gestion des aménagements urbains. Géosciences, BRGM 18:40–47
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
Funding
The authors would like to thank the French Environmental Agency (ADEME) and the Grand Est Region (France) for their financial support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Viacheslav Vasenev
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blanchart, A., Consalès, J.N., Séré, G. et al. Consideration of soil in urban planning documents—a French case study. J Soils Sediments 19, 3235–3244 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-2028-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-2028-x