Transforming &ldquo;Living Labs&rdquo; into: &rdquo;Lighthouses&rdquo;: a promising policy to achieve land-related sustainable development?

Bouma, Johan

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307

Preprints

30 May 2022

| 30 May 2022

Transforming “Living Labs” into: ”Lighthouses”: a promising policy to achieve land-related sustainable development?

Johan Bouma

Abstract. The until that time rather abstract debate about sustainable development has been focused by introducing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 and the related European Green Deal in 2019. Restricting attention to agriculture, proposed targets and indicators are, however, not specific enough to allow a focus for developing innovative and sustainable management practices. Clarity is needed because farmers are suspicious of Governmental actions defining environmental rules and regulations. The European policy arena has recognized this problem and has presented the Mission concept that requires joint learning between farmers, scientists and citizens. For the soil Mission, “Living Labs” are proposed that should evolve into: “Lighthouses” when environmental thresholds for each of at least six land-related ecosystem services,are met. This presents “wicked” problems that can be “tamed” by measuring ecosystem services in a given :”Living Lab” that are associated with the land-related SDGs. Thresholds with a regional character are needed to seperate the “good” from the “not good enough”. Contributions by the soil to ecosystem services can be expressed by assessing soil health. By introducing the Mission concept, the policy arena challenges the research community to rise to the occasion by developing effective interaction models with farmers and citizens that can be the foundation for innovative and effective environmental rules and regulations. We argue and illustrate with a specific example, that establishing :”:Living Labs” can be an important, if not essential, contribution to realizing the lofty goals of the SDGs and the Green Deal.

Received: 07 May 2022 – Discussion started: 30 May 2022

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 377 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (377 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

14 Dec 2022

Transforming living labs into lighthouses: a promising policy to achieve land-related sustainable development

Johan Bouma

SOIL, 8, 751–759, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-8-751-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-8-751-2022, 2022

Short summary

Johan Bouma

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-307', Linda Maring, 13 Jul 2022

Living Labs and Lighthouses for all land uses
The article very well describes a practical approach for the Living Labs and Lighthouses concept of the Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe” (EC, 2021) on agricultural soils. The “Soil Mission” however has the ambition to cover all land uses to support Europe’s transition towards healthier soils. The discussions and literature on Soil health Living Labs (LL) and Lighthouses (LH) focus until now on agricultural settings, and although the proportion of urban and industrial soils within Europe is much lower than agricultural (forestry, and natural) land, a lot of “soil health benefits” can be achieved here. As stated in the Soil Mission Implementation plan “A Soil Deal for Europe” there are: 2.8 million potentially contaminated sites, but only 24% of the sites are inventoried and by 2018 only 65.500 have been remediated; only 13% of urban development takes place development on recycled urban land; and next to that urban and industrial soils can contribute with their ecosystem services to many challenges such as climate change, water regulation, biodiversity etc. (Van der Meulen & Maring, 2018)
To be able to cover all land uses in the 100 by the Soil Mission proposed LL (EC, 2021), it would be good to broaden the discussion on Soil Health LL and LH to urban and industrial land. There are several points, addressed in the article, that should be further discussed or elaborated to be able to also setup promising, practical and viable Soil Health LL and LH in urban and industrial settings.
1: scale and the regional / landscape multi-site criterion
Although not highlighted in the article, the Soil Mission Implementation Plan “A Soil Deal for Europe" indicates that living labs are collaborations between multiple partners that operate at regional or sub-regional level and coordinate experiments on several sites within a regional or sub-regional area (or working landscapes) The “multiple site demand” is logic for an agricultural LL with several agricultural sites in a specific soil-water-system. However, the demand to involve multiple sites within a region as a strict precondition for setting up a LL can hamper possibilities for industrial and urban sites. Because industrial and urban land use do not (in most cases) have such a direct link to soils as agriculture, the collation of sites in an industrial or urban LL could therefore better depend on the problem you want to solve or objectives you want to contribute to (such as contamination or land subsidence or climate change adaptation). While there will not always be multiple (industrial/urban) sites with the same challenge within the same region available, a LL setup in which a collection of individual single sites in different regions/countries working together on a common challenge could be more promising. And at the same time, such a LL would still be effective to explore, develop and implement soil health improvements, under different circumstances.
For industrial sites it can be even more challenging to setup soil health LL, because soil health is not the primary issue for many industrial actors. Solving contaminated soils to comply to regulation is. And emerging contamination would be a very interesting starting point because they occur everywhere, regulatory frameworks within the different member states are in most cases not yet in place, techniques and management practices are still under development. The successful practices can become lighthouses that can be applied elsewhere.
Of course, one can think of successful LL in a regional setting in urban or industrial land. E.g. a transformation site, where underused sites are being regenerated and transformed to different kinds of beneficial (soft or hard) land use; or industrial / urban areas where circular economy approaches are being applied and soil/sand could be reused within the region, etc. However, these are timely processes. To set up a LL here, the time should already be right, and actors should be already engaged.
2: soil health for urban and industrial sites
Soil health is defined as “the continued capacity of soils to support ecosystem services” and is assessed through a set of proposed, measurable indicators (A Soil Deal for Europe). In Veerman et al, 2020), quoted by Bouma et al, 2022, underlying the commented article: soil health indicators are linked to the “needs of growing roots”: (i) lack of pollutants; (ii) good soil structure; (iii) relatively high organic matter contents; (iv) high soil biodiversity; (v) favorable soil moisture regimes (newly added); and (vi) favorable soil fertility.
These soil health indicators are practical and completely logical for agricultural use. However, for industrial and urban land (that is not likely going to transform to other land use in the near future), and where the biomass production is not the primary function, it would be good to assess if all these indicators should be equally important, or if we should develop another practical set of indicators linked to a specific land use and that take into account the for that land use important ecosystem services and objectives. When looking at the current soil health indicators, lack of pollutants remains a strong and valuable indicator, while we can relate it to human and ecological health. Structure and carbon content and soil moisture can be linked to climate change adaptation and mitigation objectives. These can be of importance, mainly in urban areas, but also industrial areas can benefit. Biodiversity can obviously be linked to biodiversity objectives that most urban areas will endorse. For industrial areas this is likely a more secondary objective (“nice to have”). Soil fertility could also be related to climate adaptation in terms of being the basis for green areas, but is probably not so relevant, also because urban and industrial greens will be chosen on other criteria than biomass production (biodiversity, attractiveness, resilience & robustness, native species, etc.). At this point it would be interesting to think if other soil health indicators could be of relevance for these land uses.
3: SDGs and ecosystem services as central concepts to a LL
For Living Labs, one could take the Soil Mission’s objectives (six “soil threaths”, and 2 more general objectives: increase soil literacy and; Reduce the EU global footprint on soils) as starting point. The article proposes SDGs and/or Ecosystem Services (ESS) delivery. SDGs can a good starting point for urban and industrial land use, because they are adopted by all member states and are recognizable for municipalities, companies/industries. SDG allow better insight in the multifunctionality of land and the different tradeoffs and synergies (in a broader sense than soil) than when we focus on battling soil threats. As stated in the article, the SDG targets can remain rather vague when applied on a (series of) sites. The ESS concept can help making the objectives more measurable. But: when using multiple concepts, which need to be communicated to a broader audience, it would be good to use a conceptual model (CM) at the start of a LL, to describe the relations between SDGs – ESS - soil health – land use. The CM can support the narrative, show how they interact, how ESS can strengthen or weaken each other and how land management practices can be of influence. This should go beyond the LL scale itself, adverse effects on soil health elsewhere, as a result of the LL practice should be noted and avoided. This also relates with the Soil Mission Objective “Reduce the EU global footprint on soils”.
4: Thresholds to determine whether a LL becomes a LH
In the article, the SDGs are translated to measurable ESS (production of healthy food, water quality (link to Water Framework Directive, Nitrate directive) Energy, in terms of emission of greenhouse gases and carbon capture, biodiversity preservation and soil health (Life on land, SDG15)). Thresholds are being proposed for assessing whether a LL is a success and becomes a LH (When the soil is healthy and all ESS reach the threshold). For agricultural soils, there is quite some data on what a “normal” yield is on a specific soil. A threshold can be derived from this. For energy use and biodiversity this is already more difficult as shown in the article. For ecosystem services performance on urban and industrial sites (this can be the same set of ESS as used in the article, or an adapted set for the specific land use) data of what a normal performance of ESS is on a specific soil at a specific land use are not so easy to retrieve or lacking. When setting up urban and industrial LL, the indicators and thresholds should be carefully considered and, as is suggested in the article, practical cost and effort efficient measuring / monitoring methods should be developed / used.
Another consideration is if it is enough to comply with (upcoming) legislation / regulation (as the example in the article of water quality, which is very practical to choose as a threshold) or if we want to actually increase the performance of a certain ESS. For agricultural use, the primary ESS is retaining or improving yield while improving long term soil health, water quality, biodiversity, energy use, can be seen here as important, but are described more as boundary conditions. For other land uses, other ESS (biodiversity, energy) can be more important. It is therefore advisable when setting up a LL to think about the level of ambition for each of the chosen ESS and allow for a different order of importance and therefor for different thresholds.
Finally, some food for thought on Lighthouses: A Living Lab site becomes according to the article a Lighthouse when all set thresholds for soil health / ESS performance are reached. But is such a strict definition for a Soil Health Lighthouse needed or can we also define other “Lighthouses” that can emerge from the LL. Can a LH also showcase a cheap / easy / effective monitoring method for ESS performance? Can a lighthouse show 1 specific management practice that promotes just one or a few instead of all ESS in the LL? Or can a Lighthouse showcase good and effective soil literacy / education examples without yet reaching all soil health targets? So: can we set different “success criteria” within a LL (next to reaching thresholds for soil health / ESS delivery) and if we reach them, does that site than qualify as a LH on that specific objective?
5: Business models for the LL
The Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe” mentions thanew (policy) incentives and business models are needed to reward soil beneficial practices by land managers, agri-food system players and other actors across value chains. An important part when designing a LL is to consider the business model during the LL lifespan but also afterwards (Lighthouse, and when it becomes “business as usual”).
Subsidies can be a tool to change our way of working, and support soil health. The article mentions potential targeted subsidies (from the CAP) to improve ecosystem performance, which is a very nice example. For urban and industrial soils possibilities for subsidies and rewarding mechanisms for improving soil health and ESS should also be further investigated. Also avoided costs and a rewarding system for solving problems (such as contamination) could be part of a business model. As mentioned in some examples in the article also the phase after the LL should also be further investigated for industrial and urban LL.
A good business model can contribute to the uptake of good practices by others and therefor to the upscaling from LL/LH experimenting to “the real world”.
6: actor involvement for the LL
As a final point: in Living Labs cocreation with multiple actors is a criterion. Ideally land users, scientists, policy makers and citizens collaborate within the LL setting. The article mentions the collaboration between government, people and science. It would be interesting to further elaborate the argumentation why the involvement of citizens on the topic of soil health – a specific land use is needed. "Because LL need to have the involvement of citizens" is not a good reason, nor for agricultural, nor for other soils. Also, without citizens the land use management can change by land owners in collaboration with policy makers and/or scientists. But, citizen awareness contributing to the willingness to pay more for sustainable products, change in consumption patterns or demands to trade systems is a more valid reason that can strengthen the business model. For other land uses than agricultural, especially urban, the citizen is a primary actor while the citizen is a land user and, in many cases, also owner. For industrial soils, the citizen stands further away and would not necessarily need to be involved in the LL setting, while land user, scientist and policy maker could be a strong coalition here. Again here, the link to and benefit from healthy soils need to be made clear when involving the citizen in a LL. So, for each setting the actor engagement and “what’s in it for them”, what are common grounds and shared objectives should be determined to ensure effective actor engagement.
EC, 2021 A Soil Deal for Europe. 100 living labs and lighthouses to lead the transition towards healthy soils by 2030. Implementation plan. DG Research and Innovation https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/research_and_innovation/funding/documents/soil_mission_implementation_plan_final_for_publication.pdf
Bouma, J. de Haan, J.J. and Dekkers, M.S. 2022 Exploring Operational Procedures to Assess Ecosystem Services on Farm Level, including the Role of Soil Health. Soil Systems, 6,34. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems6020034
Van der Meulen, S.M., Maring, L., 2018 Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services- Soil ecosystems. SOILS4EU report. http://www.worldsoilday2017.eu/pdfs/Soils4EU_D1.2_ecosystemservices_MAES.pdf
Veerman, C.; Pinto Correia, T.; Bastioli, C.; Biro, B.; Bouma, J.; Cienciala, E.; Emmett, B.; Frison, E.A.; Grand, A.; Hristov, L.; et al. 2020. Caring for Soil Is Caring for Life—Ensure 75% of Soils Are Healthy by 2030 for Food, People, Nature and Climate, Independent Expert Report; European Commission (EC): Luxembourg.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on comment by Dr. L.Maring.', Johan Bouma, 13 Jul 2022
  
  I welcome the comments of Dr. Maring. Indeed, even though agriculture occupies the largest land area in the EU, other forms of land use are also very important when considering attempts to reach the SDGs ( comment 2). As is pointed out, urban land use and reclaiming polluted industrial sites offer unique challenges. The same holds for forestry, that is not mentioned. In contrast to agriculture, LL’s could indeed be focused on particular problems to be solved that can well be tested in an international context as they are not site-specific. And, indeed, attention for new pollutants is urgent ( e.g. PFAS).
  Comment 1: Indeed, the LL concept is based on multiple seperate sites, an aspect that was not addressed in my article, although implicitly indicated by emphasizing that farmers face “wicked” problems with no simple magic solution. The farm being studied by the cited Bouma et al ( 2022) paper occurred on a well drained calcareous light clay soil and did not yet meet thresholds for the various ecosystem services. Other farms on comparable soils ( to be part in future of a regional LL network) may do so following unique and inspiring management practices, qualifying them to be :”Lighthouses” for this particular soil condition. Every farmer is different. The decision to publish results for one farm, exploring techniques and procedures to be used, was pragmatic. To obtain the required 10-15 farms would have taken years and would have come too late. Let me remind the reader that a review of progress on the Mission concept is planned for the end of 2023. ( EC, 2021). Also , the council of ministers of the EU has recently confirmed this by stating:”review of the missions has to proceed by December 31, 2023, before adopting any decision on creating new missions or on continuing, terminating or redirecting ongoing European missions. ( Council of the Eur.Union, 2022). The council is concerned about governing structures of the missions and integration with many ongoing existing programs.
  Comment 3: Considering the complex relations between the SDGs, ecosystem services, soil health and land use and management, it would indeed be good to develop a conceptual descriptive model, as suggested, that describes in an accessible manner the ultimate intentions of all these activities and the role of the various elements in doing so. Indeed, “framing”the SDG story in accessible language is a top priority. This should indeed include external effects that could have an impact on the global footprint: “act locally, think globally”.
  Comment 4: Only thresholds for water quality have so far been defined ( EU Water Guideline with the nitrate directive.). However, as pointed out in the article, so far regional thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions, carbon capture, biodiversity preservation and soil degradation ( to be expressed by soil health) have not yet been defined. But even if this is done in future, thresholds should reflect the state-of-the-art in terms of research and should be revised when needed. Not too often, though, because that would confuse the stakeholders. The thoughts of Dr Maring about Lighthouses are interesting but I see problems in having Lighthouses with different light intensities and would prefer to have the concept to be resticted to entities that satisfy the various ecosystem-thresholds for that location c.q. region. Elsewhere, I have compared a modern farmer with a chess-player, playing simultaneously on five boards. While the chess rules are clear, those for ecosystem services are not. If he or she is successful, only he or she deserves the emission of a full blast of light from the lighthouse. Of course, successful methods should be communicated and this is an important part of the overall communication strategy.
  Comment 5: Good to remember that sustainable development entails not only environmental aspects but social and economic aspects as well. A good business plan is indeed an essential part of the entire package. In Europe we can learn from the US National Soil Health Institute that has a strong economic program, focused on the adoption of regenerative agriculture ( www. soilhealthinstitute.org).
  Comment 6: Citizen engagement is strongly promoted by the EU ( EU, 2021, Dro et al, 2022). Successful citizen engagement in biological programs, for example by counting birds or determining vegetation types, is somewhat difficult to extrapolate to soil health programs in the context of sustainable development. Soils, after all, are invisible below the surface and soil characterisation is therefore a rather professional activity. Still, it is essential to communicate results of sustainable management and the role of soil by on-site demonstrations that can include selected observations that can easily be made , for example testing soil resistance with penetrometers as an indicator for soil structure. This form of citizen engagement is crucial to contribute to their better understanding of e.g. food prices ,consumption patterns or the role of city greenery .
  Cited references:
  European Commission (2021). European Missions. Communication from the Commission to the Eur. Parliament, the Council, the Eur. Econ. and Social Cie and the Committee of the Regions. COM (2021), 609 final. Brussels.
  Dro, C., K.Kapfinger, R.Rakio. 2022. European Missions: Delivering on Europe’s Strategic Priorities. R&I paper series. Policy Brief. EU-DG Science and Innovation.
  Council of the Eur.Union. Proceedings meeting on June 10, 2022 ( 10124/22). RECH 369; COMPET 489. EU Brussels.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-AC1
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-307', Alexandre Wadoux, 12 Aug 2022

The manuscript discusses a roadmap for “Living labs” from the Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe”, which can then become “Lighthouses” when thresholds are met. Thresholds are based on SDG, which are translated to measurable ecosystem services. Bouma advocates Living Labs as a way to engage various participants in a bottom-up approach that will eventually improve communication between local and regional stakeholders, farmers, the general public and the policy makers. When a Living lab satisfies the target and indicators of the SDG, a Lighthouse is established. The lighthouse then constitutes a local example from which a number of actors will get information and from which future regulations can be thought.
The main idea of Living labs and Lighthouse discussed in this paper is essential to address the rather abstract debates about SGD and to realize the goals or the EU Green Deal. There are to my opinion two problems to realize the goals of the SDG: i) some goals are expressed in terms of means (to reach the goals) instead of a regulation specifying thresholds values (as explained clearly by Bouma in the Introduction ), and ii) we lack a framework to assess soil contributions to realizing the SDG, so that it is still difficult to insert soil effectively in the societal and political discourse (Wadoux et al. 2021, Challenge 10).
My main comments are about the joint learning approaches that are the core of the Living labs and Lighthouses and which I think deserve more attention. While most of my comments below are about Section 4 (Public engagement) they also relate to the other sections because the degree and quality of participation is expected to impact the outcomes of Living labs as a whole.
Overall, I think this paper is a useful contribution to the debate and to the pressing issues of realizing the SDG and the EU Green Deal.
Should we abandon the term of citizen science?
As a personal note, I do not like the term citizen science. First, should one be a citizen to participate? The obvious answer is no. Citizen is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “a legally recognized subject or national of a state […] having certain rights”. I would rather prefer the general term of public participation or that of non-expert individual/participant. Second, citizen science is also difficult to clearly define and usually has two meanings. It originally comes from Irwin’s (1995) and was articulated around two points: i) “Science should address the needs and concerns of citizens, and seek to meet those needs” and ii) “The process of producing reliable knowledge could be developed and enacted by citizens themselves. People bring into science such things as local contextual knowledge and real-world geographic, political, and moral constraints generated outside of formal scientific institutions”. Another meaning comes from the well-known work of Bonney (see the report of Bonney et al. 2009) and is perhaps the most popular today. Bonney describes citizen science as non-scientists participating by contributing to scientific data. The definition of Irwin is about democratizing science, whereas that of Bonney is about public contribution to a very narrow part of the science (data collection). To my understanding this manuscript refers to the first definition of citizen science but surprisingly in his answer to the first CC (Comment 6), Bouma refers to projects where citizens (non-experts) contribute data, which then refers to the second definition above (that of Bonney). It would be useful to the reader to clarify this point and how citizen science is defined and articulated in this manuscript.
Balancing the different expectations and outcomes
Joint learning between various participants is, in my opinion, the right way to go to address complex or “wicked” situations. It is well described in the manuscript and is essential for Living labs. The main problem with joint learning, however, is to strive the right balance between the different outcomes and expectations of the participants. In a synthesis of public participation in scientific research, Shirk et al., (2012) concluded that for addressing complex problems in environment and society, projects should generally include outcomes for science, outcomes for individuals and outcomes for socio-ecological systems. In this manuscript it is clear how the outcomes for the socio-ecological system will address the expectations (i.e. address the SDG, better policy development), but I am not so clear from reading Sections 4 and 6 about the outcomes for research and for individuals. Simply said: why would the public and scientists like to engage in living labs? What’s in there for them? How to manage their expectations with respect to the potential outcomes of the Living labs?
Degree of participation
Citizen science and participation of non-experts to Living labs could describe a wide spectrum of approaches. How much power can and should the public have in the outcome? I imagine that the degree of involvement (not only of the public, but also of the scientists and farmers) will determine the expectation on the outcomes. The degree of participation is often evaluated in terms of power (see, for example, the ladder of participation) over the project in which people engage. At this point it would be interesting to define the expected degree of engagement in the joint learning phase. This would be of relevance for later assessing whether the joint learning is a success or not.
Quality of participation
The need for a bottom-up approach is acknowledged early in the manuscript (at line 94), and should be emphasized. But is it really a bottom-up approach if the participants i) do not initiate the project (Living labs) and ii) do not define themselves what are the targets and indicators to evaluate the threshold values? To my understanding a bottom-up approach means that the Livings labs are a co-creation of the farmers/public/scientists while in fact it comes from the initiative of the EU Soil Mission. Innovations in Livings labs will occur within the boundaries of a somewhat top-down approach. Shouldn’t we acknowledge that?
Further, bottom-up will also be dependent of context-relevant information and of the quality of participation: credibility of the participants and trust among participants, among others. How to ensure high-quality participation? How to ensure that the participants get their interests served, while maintaining the desired outcomes? Ample attention should be paid to the quality of participation in Living labs because this will determine many of the outcomes: such as social learning and for retaining the participants and public interest in the long term.
Policy development
I fully agree with Bouma at lines 301-304: innovative management practices are potentially more successful when environment-oriented organization are trusted. I also agree that policies are successful when the majority of people feel that the policy is right. This is in fact the basis for modern democratic systems where the majority decide. But how to deal with the various and sometimes conflicting opinions of what is right for the majority? In Section 4 the various steps of dialogue and convergence do not include any citizen until the “WE” where groups of interested citizen can come in, but only when the Living lab resulted in a Lighthouse. Isn’t a bit late? So citizen can come in only at the end of the project, that is, when a Living lab is already a Lighthouse. This relates to the degree of participation that I mentioned above and the definition of citizen science. What’s in there for the public?
Should we also ignore the group that does not agree no matter what is being proposed? Bouma has a strong claim on it at line 307, but to me many of the farming styles that are currently proposed originally come from agricultural styles that were for long considered as utopic, alternative, and, in any cases, very minor compared to the mainstream agricultural styles. Take the example of agroecology in France, now institutionalized and conventional but considered until the 2000s relatively restricted to few farms. See Bellon and Ollivier (2012, in French).
References
Bellon, S., & Ollivier, G. (2012). L’agroécologie en France: l’institutionnalisation d’utopies. L’agroécologie en Argentine et en France. Regards croisés, Paris, l’Harmattan, 55-90.
Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T. Shirk, J., & Wilderman, C. C. (2009). Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education CAISE Inquiry Group Reports. Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education.
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shirk, J. L., Ballard, H. L., Wilderman, C. C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., ... & Bonney, R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology and society, 17(2).
Wadoux, A. M. C., Heuvelink, G. B., Lark, R. M., Lagacherie, P., Bouma, J., Mulder, V. L., ... & McBratney, A. B. (2021). Ten challenges for the future of pedometrics. Geoderma, 401, 115155.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-CC2
AC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-307', Johan Bouma, 15 Aug 2022

Reply to comment on egusphere-2022-307.
Alexandre Wadoux has made some highly valuable contributions to this discussion. Citizen science was not mentioned in the paper. Reports of the European Union strongly emphasize citizen engagement ( EC, 2021, Dro et al 2022) though the latter report also mentions citizen science in section 4.1. But Wadoux is correct in stating that too little attention was paid to the role of citizens. As citizen science is a widely used term, discussion of the concept is needed.
Science can be defined as:”a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe” ( numerous references, among them Bunge,1998). Following Irwin (1995), citizens can articulate concerns and needs and can contribute knowledge to the assessment of sustainable development (in the context of this paper). Figure 1 ( line 260) is relevant here as it indicates various forms of knowledge, where the contributions by citizens at large will usually be of the K1-K2 type. But next to this, citizens can also contribute to building knowledge by gathering data as suggested by both Irwin (1995 ) and Bonney et al (2009). Examples elsewhere are counts of birds and observation of certain plants. In the context of invisible soils, activity of citizens is more complicated but can, for example, involve measurement of soil structure resistance by penetrometers and operation of proximal sensing equipment, when properly supervised.
But there is more. In 2015, 193 Governments approved the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Governments guide but also represent and, ideally, inspire their citizens. (”WE”, line 267-283). When SDG’s will not be met by 2030, this will be seen in the current policy discours as a failure of Governmental Policy. Instead, it is a failure of all of us ( “WE”) , to take steps to a more sustainable world. Unfortunately, Governments have failed to present the SDGs to their citizens in terms of a major societal challenge. When I mention SDGs at various talks, eyes tend to glaze over. There is an unfortunate gap between the policy arena and their citizens. I refer to a recent inquiry showing that 88% of Dutch dairy farmers don’t trust Government ( line 110). In any case, citizens and their action groups have” articulated concerns and needs” ( Irwin, 1995) contributing significantly to establish a climate favorable to adopt the SDGs in 2015. This should be acknowledged as a substantial contribution.
But now, a next step has to be taken urgently as goals have to be reached by 2030. SDGs and environmental ecosystem services have been defined and they need to be measured to see whether or not individual farms ( or other forms of land-use operations) meet thresholds for each of these indicators. This requires direct no-nonsense contact between farmers and researchers. No more time for endless and all too often inconclusive discussions about desirable farming systems ( lines 118-122). All systems will have to meet the thresholds and, if so, they qualify as an inspiring : “Lighthouse”. However, thresholds for the various ecosystem services still need to be discussed and citizens will again have a role here, particularly because many thresholds will need to have a regional character. As mentioned in the article, only groundwater quality ( SDG6) has so far a defined threshold. Greenhouse gas emissions/carbon capture need a primarily technical approach also considering national emission levels. For example, in the Netherlands agriculture only contributes 10% to greenhouse gas emissions while industry and traffic contribute 80%. It is clear where policies will have to focus! Thresholds for soil degradation (SDG 15) can be expressed by soil health but thresholds for biodiversity ( also SDG15) still present a big unresolved issue. Focus only on nature quality in the NATURE 2000 areas defined by the European Union?
In summary, following the definition of Irwin (1995) citizens had a role in establishing the SDGs and, after essentailly technical activities at the Living Labs, again in participating in defining socially acceptable ( regional) threshold values for, in particular, biodiversity preservation. Once :”Lighthouses” have been established citizens have a major role in spreading the word as indicated in the paper.
Will different expectations of participants in the sustainability discours , as discussed, be satisfied? Indeed: “what’s in it for me”? Farmers will be satisfied as their income increases partly by qualifying for subsidies but particularly because the new system focusing on providing ecosystem services will present much needed clarity in terms of goals be achieved. Citizens should be satisfied and inspired when their overall role, as discussed above, receives more recognition and when positive results are reached in the real world. How about the science arena, and soil science in particular?
The role of science to develop measuring methodology will serve to illustrate their crucial function. By emphasizing the contribution of soil science to the sustainability debate in terms of :”..contributing to ..ecosystem services” ( line 201) the soil science contribution could be lost in the interdisciplinary turmoil and its role might become unclear which would be unacceptable. ( Wadoux et al, 2021). Of course, soil science provides a direct threshold for SDG 15 ( soil degradation) in terms of a soil health assessment but it would indeed be relevant to also and more clearly address the effect of soils on the other SDGs. Soil moisture and nutrient regimes are crucial for production of healthy food (SDG2&3), water quality ( SDG6) and greenhouse gas emission/ carbon capture ( SDG13), as well as biodiversity preservation ( SDG15). Modeling can show what effects inadequate soil health can have for each of these SDGs as was demonstrated by a series of papers for SDG2 by Bonfante et al ( 2019, 2020a,b) also considering climate change. Such examples are needed to illustrate the crucial role of soils in sustainable development, moving beyond SDG15.
Alexandre Wadoux is correct in stating that success directly depends on the personal attitudes of participants. Not all soil scientists have the needed level of social intelligence while not all farmers are open to a broad discussion. Careful selection of participants is essential. And, indeed, the :”Living Lab” approach has been presented topdown but can positively be seen as both a statement of trust in participatory research as well as an open and urgent invitation to act as no specific roadmap is presented. The research community needs to rise now to the occasion.
Cited references.
Bonfante, A., Terribile, F., and Bouma, J. 2019. Refining physical aspects of soil quality and soil
health when exploring the effects of soil degradation and climate change on biomass production:
an Italian case study. SOIL 5, 1-14. (https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-1-2019).

Bonfante, A., A.Basile and J.Bouma. 2020a. Exploring the effect of varying soil organic matter contents on current and future moisture supply capacities of six Italian soils. Geoderma 361 .(https://doi.org/10.106/j.geoderma.2019.114079)
Bonfante, A., A.Basile and J.Bouma. 2020b. Targeting the soil quality and soil health concepts when aiming for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the EUGreen Deal . SOIL , 6, 1-14. (https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-6-1-2020)
Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T. Shirk, J., & Wilderman, C. C. (2009). Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education CAISE Inquiry Group Reports. Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education.
Bunge, M. 1998. The scientific approach: Philosophy of Science . Vol 1. From problem to theory. Routledge,3-50. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6. New York.
Dro, C., Kapfinger, K. and Rakic, R. 2022. European Missions: delivering on Europe’s strategic priorities. Eur. Cie. DG Res, and Innovation. R&I paper series. Policy brief. Publ. Office Eur, Union. Luxembourg. doi10.2777/69252.
European Commission (2021). European Missions. Communication from the Commission to the Eur. Parliament, the Council, the Eur. Econ. and Social cie and the Committee of the Regions. COM (2021), 609 final. Brusssels.
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wadoux, A. M. C., Heuvelink, G. B., Lark, R. M., Lagacherie, P., Bouma, J., Mulder, V. L., ... & McBratney, A. B. (2021). Ten challenges for the future of pedometrics. Geoderma, 401, 115155.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-AC2
CC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-307', Anna Krzywoszynska, 06 Sep 2022

This paper proposes the Living Labs as sites which can help European societies achieve Sustainable Development Goals. Bouma suggests that LL can address the issue of a ‘lack of clarity’ around SDGs, and that this can be done by 1. developing locally specific measurements of environmental thresholds, specifically ecosystem services, and 2. developing locally specific practices for staying within those thresholds. This is underpinned by the LL process of bringing land owners, scientists, and the broader public together in a learning process. The LLs thus present a key site in which to develop best-practice examples of practices which would enable societies to meet the ‘lofty goals’ (Bouma’s term) expressed by the SDGs.
LLs are thus imagined as places in which practices are developed to fit land use activities (e.g. agriculture) within ‘threshold values’, and which on achieving such practices are transformed into a site of education and communication – a Lighthouse (LH).
I am very supportive of the importance granted in this paper to LLs a key sites for shared learning between different societal groups, including between scientists, land owners, local inhabitants, agri-food system actors, and policymakers at different levels. However, I urge the author, and indeed the wider LL literature. to expand their thinking about the ambition of the LLs to the composition of issues themselves, not only to their resolution. Wicked problems, such as soil health, can only be addressed through collaboration on the problem framing. This is well established in social science literature.
LLs: who determines the framing?
The contribution of the scientific community imagined in the paper is focused on the interdisciplinary modelling of ecosystem services in specific LLs. It is hoped that by defining ecosystem services the research community can ‘tame the wicked problems’ (231-235) related to land use change. In other words, it seems that Bouma is proposing that the solution to resolving the conflicts around land use change is ensuring that (trusted) scientists define the nature and extent of the problem, and so set a frame within which solutions can be found.
This assumption is problematic in that it does not address the foundation of wicked problems – i.e. the conflict around the nature of the issue. Bouma seems to suggest that it is groups of scientists should who should be assigned the authority to define the nature of the problem across different LLs (the performance of a given site in relation to SDGs as assessed through environmental services modelling), and that this definition should then be accepted by the land owners and indeed the wider community gathered around a specific Living Lab. In other words, Bouma seems to argue that scientists somehow have the power and authority to cut the Gordian knot of wicked problems to the satisfaction of all parties.
However, the nature of wicked problems is precisely that the scientific framing of issues is only one the competing problem definitions. There is no reason to believe that a scientific definition of a LL as a set of ecosystem services to be satisfied within the thresholds linked to SDGs will be seen as a legitimate framing of the issue by land owners or other LL-related groups. Indeed, experience suggests that scientists will not have the authority to impose such a framing on the situation, and that their attempts to do so will be contested.
While the section 4 on engaging the public stresses the importance of joint learning to the proposed LL process, it is not clear what the extent of this joint learning is, and most importantly whether this joint learning is focused on the framing of the situation (what is the nature of the problem), or only on its resolution (how to solve the problem) – it seems to me to be the latter.
Refocusing LLs on finding shared problem frames
In line with much of the existing literature on public participation in science, I instead draw attention to the importance of focusing on the problem definition itself as a the key space of knowledge co-production around environmental or land use controversies (see e.g. Turnhout et al 2019, Tsouvalis and Waterton 2012). For a wicked problem to be ‘tamed’, the co-creation of innovation process must start at the problem definition itself.
I appreciate that my comment goes to the very heart of the issue of the design of a Living Lab, and specifically the question of framing or problem definition. Living Labs were originally created within the industrial sector in order to bring users into contact with innovations in a pre-market space. These original LLs therefore had a very strong ownership of the issue at hand – the scope of the LL was determined by the LL creators (e.g. a company) (see Puerari et al 2018). A pre-existing shared definition of the problem between different groups in the LL seems to be a persistent element of the LL design, as suggested by this definition from 2011: Living Labs are “multi-stakeholder platform as a (voluntary or statutory) body, comprising different stakeholders, who perceive the same problem, realize their own respective interdependencies, and come together to agree on the best action strategies for solving it” (Molinari et al 2011: 133). Indeed, in keeping with this pre-determined framing approach, the LL process proposed by Bouma can be seen to fall into the ‘trial’ typology of LLs discussed in Bulkley et al’s (2019) study of Urban Living Labs, in that it ‘seeks to limit the indeterminate conditions that it encounters, often confining the ULL in both space and time. It is at heart a form of disciplinary power. (…) this is a form of laboratory that is concerned with securing particular outcomes’.
However, more authors are now calling for a widening of the LL remit to the co-creation of values and issue frames themselves (e.g. Puerari et al 2018), for example by starting the co-creation process by exploring potential desirable futures (Hajer and Vertsteeg 2019), and by recognising the importance of rooting the LL process in a shared narrative of place and a sense of belonging (Frantzeskaki et al 2019). In a paper which will be especially relevant to Bouma, Zivkovic (2018) indeed argues that LLs are better at addressing complex rather than wicked problems, which require a system perspective and focus on creating a shared framing.
Towards an ecosystem of LL as experiments in problem framing
What would collaboration on problem framings look like in practice? The model proposed by Bouma in this paper would ideally be only one of many approaches trialled within the LL landscape on how to successfully achieve SDGs (or other objectives). The success of such a model should not be presumed, but rather the uptake, use and varied implementation of such a framework as a way of organising a LL should be studied.
The example cited in section 6 case study can be used to illustrate this. In Bouma’s proposal, one of the environmental services modelled is ‘yield’, for which the acceptable threshold is set to be 80%. This presupposes that there is an agreement between different members of the LL on what kind of crop should be grown, and what constitutes a desirable yield level. However, as academic and public debates on the futures of agri-food systems show, what crops are desirable for the future of eating and land use, and what a desirable yield looks like, are highly contested, and open to change.
Instead of pre-framing achieving 80% of yield of an existing crop as the conditions of success for this LL, a more participatory approach is needed. This approach would try to resolve the ’wickedness’ of the problem of land use by creating a conversation between the LL stakeholders (including eaters) about what kind of land use and crop type would be desirable and feasible in the LL. This should include a conversation about what kind of market structures would be needed to support land use change (in contrast to Bouma’s assumption that market structures are outside the scope of the LL, lines 185-189). Once a desirable land use and crop change has been identified which responds to the needs and ambitions of the LL stakeholders, the LL experiments with the new land use, farming, and market model. The success of the model is similarly evaluated by the LL stakeholders (including scientists and researchers), and the potential passing to a Lightouse stage is similarly decided by the LL group. Existing social-ecological groups, such as agroecological community supported agriculture initiatives, can be seen as examples of such a process – the LL model enriches them through a greater collaboration with the sciences.
In this way, LL move from being experiments in the solution of pre-defined problems, to experiments in the joint understanding of and resolution of issues. In my view, and in line with the public participation scholarship in the social sciences, the definition of the LLs proposed should recognise both the frameworks for the definition of problems, and the practices for their resolution, as objects of LL experimentation

References
Bulkeley, Harriet, et al. "Urban living labs: governing urban sustainability transitions." Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 22 (2016): 13-17.
Frantzeskaki, Niki, Frank Van Steenbergen, and Richard C. Stedman. "Sense of place and experimentation in urban sustainability transitions: The Resilience Lab in Carnisse, Rotterdam, The Netherlands." Sustainability science 13.4 (2018): 1045-1059.
Hajer, Maarten, and Wytske Versteeg. "Imagining the post-fossil city: why is it so difficult to think of new possible worlds?." Territory, Politics, Governance 7.2 (2019): 122-134.
Molinari, F. Living Labs as Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for the eGovernance of Innovation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Tallinn, Estonia, 26–29 September 2011; Estevez, E., Janssen, M., Eds.; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 131–140. [Google Scholar]
Puerari, Emma, et al. "Co-creation dynamics in urban living labs." Sustainability 10.6 (2018): 1893.
Tsouvalis, Judith, and Claire Waterton. "Building ‘participation’upon critique: The Loweswater care project, Cumbria, UK." Environmental Modelling & Software 36 (2012): 111-121.
Turnhout, Esther, Willemijn Tuinstra, and Willem Halffman. Environmental expertise: connecting science, policy and society. Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Zivkovic, Sharon. "Systemic innovation labs: a lab for wicked problems." Social Enterprise Journal (2018).

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-CC3
- AC3:
  'Reply on CC3', Johan Bouma, 08 Sep 2022
  Reply on comments by Anna Krzywoszynska.
  Comments by Anna K., largely based on the social-science literature, are highly relevant and helpful to better and more sharply focus the debate on Living Labs and Lighthouses. A reaction to some of her major comments:
  According to Anna K. , emphasis in the current article appears to be not so much on the :” composition of the issues”but on “their solution”. “Scientists define the nature and extent of the problem and set a frame within which solutions can be found”. This, however, was not the intended message of the article and rephrasing will be needed to make this clear. The 17 UN-SDGs of 2015, approved (!) by 193 Governments, have formulated goals, thresholds and indicators for sustainable development ( defining, in fact:”the nature and extent of the problem”). This was based on long discussions with the citizen and policy arena and scientists. The United Nations have already , in fact, “framed” the issue! We should not restart those discussions at this point in time but focus on ways to implement in the real world the intentions articulated in 2015. There is still much to do! Sure, consumers and markets are important but they are addressed directly or indirectly already by some of the SDGs and farmers would be wise to focus now on what all this implies for their particular enterprise. The Living Labs can make essential contributions in this particular context involving all participants, including scientists.
  
  As mentioned by the quoted Molinari et al 2011, the original concept of Living Labs was established in an urban context and was based on common agreement as to the definition of the problem being assessed. With the SDGs, conditions are fundamentally different. There are huge perception gaps between science, stakeholders and society when focusing on sustainable development. Most farmers still have an economic focus on their enterprise, and attention for water quality, biodiversity preservation and climate mitigation, required by the SDGs, is all too often seen as an ( abstract and offensive) outside intrusion on their entrepreneurship. Indeed, “ uptake,use and implementation of the framework” is what ultimately counts. How can we, therefore, reach a condition where societal goals, as articulated by the SDGs, are also internalized by land users, among which farmers are the largest group. Again, here Living Labs can play an essential role, particularly in defining thresholds for indicators that seperate the “good”from the “not yet good enough” ( note the positive framing). Such thresholds should be thoroughly discussed with all participants and should have a regional character.
  
  Interactive studies at a given Living Lab don’t start with “defining problems”. Scientists should start by listening and observing the practices of a given farmer, often the results of many years of experience. Next, scientists will define how this particular system scores in terms of the various SDG-indicators and their thresholds. This will provide much needed clarity for all involved. Attention can then be focused on improving ecosystem services that don’t meet their threshold.Information by farmers from other Living Labs on the same type of soil, rather than topdown scientific advice, may be most effective here.
  
  I feel that problems are “wicked”rather than just :”complex”. There are no simple straightforward solutions to sustainability problems, but, rather, a series of alternative options or scenarios: “Desirable Futures” as mentioned by Hajer and Vertsteeg , 2018. Different farmers working on the same type of soil in a given region can meet ecosystem thresholds in different ways. That’s why good documentation of management practices being followed at a given Living lab is essential.
  
  Joint learning should, in my view, involve both the “nature” of the problem and its “solution”.By assisting farmers to meet sustainability thresholds, thereby showing society at large how farming can contribute to sustainable development , scientists can play a key role in closing the current gap between science and society. They have undeniable “power” by way of their expertise but certainly not the “authority” to define management or rules and regulations that form and should form the domains of farmers and the policy arena. Demonstrating modern agricultural production systems that may be considered to be sustainable( as they meet the various SDG thresholds), can be a crucial contribution to “joint understanding and solution of issues”, the more so since they require an integrated view that avoids getting lost in details.
  
  Interesting to note that Anna K. focuses in this SOIL journal on ecosystem services and not on soil health. When addressing soil scientists there is still resistance to define soil health as : .. contributing to ecosystem services in line with the SDGs and the Green Deal”. ( Veerman et al, 2020). But soils cannot do it alone; an interdisciplinary effort is essential to which, no doubt, soil science contributes essential information. Emphasizing that contribution, as I have consistantly tried to do, is more effective than pontifying about soils in general.
  
  The issue of a possible threshold yield of 80%Yw illustrates that the discussion takes place at different levels. SDG2 has been abbreviated as: “No More Hunger” and relates to the complete food chain from farm to fork. The farmer finds herself at the start of the foodchain, having to produce a sufficient quantity of healthy products that constitutes the economic basis of the enterprise. The 80%Yw for a standard crop tells us the theoretical attainable production level at a particular location with a particular soil, including the water regime while assuming that the plants receive adequate nutrients and there are no pests and diseases. If this level is not met, an analysis is needed of causes and when it is met it provides a starting point for experimentation with different crops and crop rotations within Living Labs on the same type of soil in the same climate zone.
  
  Cited reference:
  Veerman, C., Bastioli, C., Biro, B., Bouma, J., Cienciala, E., Emmett, B., Frison, E. A., Grand, A.,
  Filchev, L., Kriaučiūnienė, Z., Pinto Correia, T., Pogrzeba, M., Soussana, J-F., Vela, C., Wittkowski, R., 2020. Caring for soil is caring for life - Ensure 75% of soils are healthy by 2030 for food, people, nature and climate, Independent expert report, Eur. Comm. Publ. Office of the Eur. Union, Luxembourg,
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-AC3
RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-307', Kris Van Looy, 06 Oct 2022
The manuscript presents a framework for organizing the “Living labs” from the Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe”. In this framework LLs are transdisciplinary playgrounds to solve the wicked problems in current land use for reaching the healthy soils - determined in specific thresholds. These LLs can then become “Lighthouses” when those thresholds are met. Thresholds are based on SDG, which are translated to measurable ecosystem services.

If the paper really ambitions to propose the framing and draw the lines on how LLs and lighthouses under the Soil Mission should function, then I see a framework that is a bit narrow in my opinion, and a structure that will make them not deliver on promise or in time.

Overall, three elements in the manuscript seem problematic or too restrictive in my view:

Firstly, the general target of establishing LLs is presented here as investigating and demonstrating the achievement of the prior established targets; I would think that for instance also the identification of specific targets in specific conditions could be subject for a LL. Should these not be laboratories to solve a broader question to what ‘sustainable soil management’ should look like, either from a technical view, or from a more social view, in a transdisciplinary way and through close collaboration of scientists with practitioners and society;

The manuscript focusses the transition from LL to Lighthouse; but in view of their different goals in the context of the Soil Deal for Europe targets, I would not like to wait for the 100LLs to reach the good soil health condition before first seeing them starting to work as lighthouses. We all know that for many soils restoring carbon stocks to target can take decades. I suggest we need lighthouses right away, and I believe they need a specific approach/construction for being successful – clearly distinct from the targets of a LL. Obviously it would not be beneficiary to end up with showcases that actually are not reaching the targets, but the ambition for defining lighthouses is to demonstrate ‘solutions’ that have proven their success in improving soil health; so, even if they do not reach the target by 100%, significantly improving a condition is also important to show, and perhaps more needed than a LL case of a high complexity that is only applicable under very specific conditions for instance.

The measurement of soil health targets is suggested to be in ecosystem services; but this is also a problematic aspect, since apart from crop yield not one soil ecosystem service is well quantified at this moment (or at least not in the sense that it can be applied at different scales (and at field level and over soil types), so it would take another twenty years to establish an evaluation framework for the soil deal and soil health law. Discussions and research on soil health indicators are taken up strongly at the moment, and of course the SDG and a translation in ecosystem services offers a framing, but should not be limiting that exercise (discussions on quantification of certain ecosystem services would lead us nowhere). This is also the weak part of the presented example; only the Yw is presented as quantitative indicator, and for the others we can go on for years. So, I would not follow the Ecosystem service framework for evaluation, since this is too far from the specific context of the soil health law.

In conclusion, I definitely concur with the paper’s intentions of providing some framing to the construction of LLs and Lighthouses for their transdisciplinary character, and with the other comments on the need for a specific social orientation and co-creation approach. My additional plea would be for a wider scope in targets for LLs – here restricted to farmland – with also LLs to investigate healthy urban soils, regenerative or circular land use forms, nature-based solutions for diffuse polluted soils, etc.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-RC1
- AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Johan Bouma, 08 Oct 2022
  
  This contribution by dr. Van Looy is particularly valuable as it illustrates the need to better explain some basic concepts involved. The:”Soil Deal for Europe” puts major emphasis on establishing at least 100 Living Labs and Lighthouses, resulting in healthy soils by 2030. Soil health is defined by :”the continued capacity of soils to support ecosystem services” to meet global committments such as the SDGs. A key message: soil health supports…. . The SDGs, not only defining seventeen goals but also targets and indicators, have been welcome in 2015 as they specified the until that time nebulous concept of sustainable development. Note that the SDGs have three dimensions: economic, social and environmental. We only deal with the environmental aspects in terms of providing ecosystem services and the ultimate judgement about the SGSs needs to consider the other two dimensions as well.
  Certainly, not only agricultural land use has to be considered but other uses as well, such as city greens, industrial soils and forests.(see first comment by Linda Maring) We focused on agriculture for a start as farmers constitute the largest group of land users. Individual farms can form Living Labs and a series of Labs can be established for a given soil type in a given region to express results of different forms of management. Reacting to the question by dr. Van Looy, some of these farms may, for example, already have achieved successful carbon capture and sharing their management schemes may inspire other farmers in the same region to innovate their management. We don’t have to wait 20 years! Van Looy worries that defining indicators and thresholds for LL’s will take too much time. But much data are already available to define the most important ecosystem services: producing sufficient quantities of healthy food ( SDG2&3); protecting water quality ( SDG6), reducing greenhouse gas emission and enhancing carbon capture (SDG13) and preserving biodiversity and combatting land degradation (SDG15). Defining thresholds, that should have a regional character for particular soil types, still needs some research, particularly for biodiversity ( see Bouma et al, 2022). Note that the ecosystem approach covers the entire farming system, way beyond the impact of soil. What, then, are the contributions by soils to achieve these ecosystem services? In this context, indicators for soil health have been defined by the Mission Board of Soil Health and Food ( Veerman et al, 2020). Note that the term “soil ecosystem services” is confusing as many scientific disciplines support ecosystem services. Also soils support…Again, many data are available in literature to show contributions by soil to the soil-water-plant-atmosphere system allowing determination of these indicators, while thresholds, again, will need more research. (see Bouma et al, 2022). We have advocated a “one-out, all-out” principle when deciding whether or not ecosystem services or soil health indicators have met their thresholds. This is clear for ecosystem services as an “average service” would be meaningless. For soils it avoids complicated procedures to define an average soil health value and clearly states that a soil is healthy or not. This procedure needs particular attention because soil health values have to be documented by 2030. And: “The healthier the soil the higher the contribution to ecosystem services”. The Soil Deal for Europe defines eight objectives that largely correspond with the soil indicators. The desertification objective is different but results in unhealthy soils and Living Labs in the same region on similar soils can hopefully show the way to innovative management combatting desertification, thereby resulting in a Lighthouse. Finally, Dr van Looy is correct in assuming that a “soil Lighthouse” can be established based on positive thresholds for soil health while the thresholds for ecosystem services for the complete farming system are not reached ( see the example by Bouma et al, 2022).
  Cited references:
  Veerman, C., Bastioli, C., Biro, B., Bouma, J., Cienciala, E., Emmett, B., Frison, E. A., Grand, A.,
  Filchev, L., Kriaučiūnienė, Z., Pinto Correia, T., Pogrzeba, M., Soussana, J-F., Vela, C., Wittkowski, R.,
  2020. Caring for soil is caring for life - Ensure 75% of soils are healthy by 2030 for food, people, nature
  and climate, Independent expert report, Eur. Comm. Publ. Office of the Eur. Union, Luxembourg,
  
  Bouma, J. J.J. de Haan and M.S.Dekkers. 2022. Exploring Operational Procedures to Assess Ecosystem Services on Farm Level, including the Role of Soil Health. Soil Systems, 6,34. (6020034)
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-AC4
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-307', Peter Finke, 25 Oct 2022

Review of Bouma, J. Transforming “Living Labs” into :”Lighthouses”: a promising policy to achieve land-related sustainable development?

This manuscript is a plea for a more operational way to forward agricultural systems so that they comply better with the sustainable development goals while stimulating profitability and creating a larger support base amongst the land users.

While this plea is valuable, I am, frankly, not certain whether this type of manuscript fits well in the scope of SOIL, to publish scientific research that contributes to understanding of the soil system and its interaction with humans and the entire Earth system. The manuscript is more a position paper than a scientific study. I leave this issue to the topical editor, and will with my remarks aim at objectification of some statements that now strike me as opinions rather than objective conclusions, and suggest some improvements or clarifications.

l.57: ref EC, 2021 is missing

l.62: meeting particular threshold value: Vague. Who would/should define the threshold values, and how?

At some places the intelligence and experiences of farmers are downplayed, I think this is not justified:

l.102: "farmers are confused and ill-informed": "Confused" is also a role that can be played for political reasons (posed Calimero complex). Farmers are usually very well informed, not in the least because they are well-organized.

l.115: "apparently": tendentious statement. Perhaps they are well-communicated and understood, but not attractive economically, so ignored?

At other places the role and outputs of scientific research are also downplayed.

l.119: "conflicting information" and l.122: "many of which ... part of SDG spectrum"

I would propose to be more specific.

In case of the conflicting information: who are the "highly vocal supporters"? Are these active scientists, emeriti happy to be on TV once again, influencers? Do these highly vocal supporters expose, construct or misuse conflicting information? All of these possibilities may be true, actually, but better to be clear on when part the conflicting info is named as part of a political game and when it is conflicting from a scientific perspective.

Regarding the coverage of the SDG-spectrum of the named farming systems: a table relating farming systems to SDG-coverage would be illustrative and would make the statement stronger.

l.144: "establishment of <...> and lighthouses provides a clear starting point": in l.62-63, a lighthouse is "matured/successful" Living lab, thus rather an endmember than a starting point.

l.160: ecosystem services at farm level in Living Labs: would this be feasible if export of harmful substances beyond the farm ("transformation of agrochemicals"), a 3D-problem, is at stake? Research is currently being done at the regional (transfarm) scale, searching for nature compensations or dampening of agricultural impacts, which sounds more feasible to me. Field boundaries may change, invalidating a farm study while the regional landscape is more stable.

l.179: "regional thresholds": perhaps consider referencing to this recent publcation by a.o.Wim de Vries: Schulte-Uebbing, L.F., Beusen, A.H.W., Bouwman, A.F. et al. From planetary to regional boundaries for agricultural nitrogen pollution. Nature 610, 507–512 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05158-2

l.186: "depends on market conditions and consumer choices": this sounds like a plea for transdisciplinary research and should not be ignored. Perhaps mention this.

l.188: "bound to be commercially more attractive": Tendentious statement; any supporting reference for this?

I like sections 3, 4 and 5. Some remarks though:

l.200: linking the definition of soil health to ecosystem services, the SDG's and the Green Deal seems to exclude soil health in, e.g., Australia (some colleagues there would not appreciate this), and also suggests a temporal perspective at the political (election) time scale. Intentional?

l.233: "ine witGthe">"line with the"

l.273-280: Are scientists and farmers the only partners to arrive at "WE"? It would seem essential to have good mediators to streamline the process. Leads to Conclusion 5, by the way.

l.296-297: satisfying threshold values: this is of more importance than it seems here. Could be a bit expanded so that the questions behind it are identified. E.g.: Who does it, who sets the ambition level? WE will agree on RIGHT easily when the ambition level is low... Should threshold values be locally decided upon, or should they be set at a general political (EC?) level, even for a region? Can treshold values be negotiated to obtain more WE? an example in l.333: 80% Yw was decided upon by who?

l.348: remove ,

l.388: No treshold cannot lead to a positive result.

txt: do a search/replace from ":(" to "("

Peter Finke

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-RC2
- AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Johan Bouma, 31 Oct 2022
  
  This comment provides highly relevant suggestions. Whether or not this paper fits in the scope of SOIL has to be judged by the editors but the criteria:”understanding the soil system and its interaction with humans” as well as :”emphasis on studies that integrate soil science with other sciences” would both seem to fit perfectly well.
  The discussion of threshold values of ecosystem service indicators has received much more emphasis in the revised paper. Dr. Finke was correct in stating that this aspect was not well articulated. Research on meaningful thresholds is needed and requires, again, research input in an inter- and transdisciplinary context.
  The attitudes of farmers has been described somewhat differently now by emphasizing only confusion and, above all, the need for clarity.Also, more emphasis is given to meeting thresholds of a series of ecosystem services. Different farming systems being promoted now can certainly be a source of inspiration but the final verdict about meeting thresholds applies to all systems ( also possibly new ones!). Again: clarity!
  It is, in my view, not possible to provide a table showing how the various farming systems can meet SDG demands. There is much variation and systematic investigation of indicators for ecosystem services ( that would be the basis for such a table) simply does not exist.
  Correct, Lighthouses don’t represent a starting point They result from successful Living Labs.
  The regional context of indicators forms a valid poit of discussion. I have added the citation of de Vries et al but also mention the :”tragedy of the Commons” dilemma. Real engagement of farmers ( and other land users) will only materialize, I feel, when they know what to aim for on their particular farm.
  It is indeed good to emphasize that the discussion focuses on environmental aspects of sustainable development, as framed by the SDGs. But next to the environment there are, of course, the important social and economic considerations. The environment is not the only game in town.
  The Australians don’t have to worry because the SDGs apply worldwide but in a journal of the European Geosciences Union , the EC with its Green Deal cannot be omitted.
  Interesting question about the “WE”. In fact, governmental policies in democratic societies reflect ( ideally) a “WE”, warts and all. I feel that success at farm level Living Lab studies would initially be well served by emphasizing the :”WE:” formed by farmers and researchers who should, of course, be aware of societal demands. Outside communication would be so much better when there are successful Lighthouse examples later on. I don’t think it would work if large groups of various people with various interests would guide Living Lab activities right from the start. I have rephfased the text and time will tell what will work best in practice.
  Indeed, when a threshold is not met , a soil cannot be healthy. But soil biologists have not come up yet with clear indicators, let alone, thresholds. They may in future but until that time proxies may be needed.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-AC5
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-307', David Rossiter, 28 Oct 2022

Summary: This paper addresses a time-critical problem: how to transform European agriculture to achieve "sustainable" development. It focuses on the proposal for "Living Labs" proposed as part of the "Soil Deal for Europe" by the EC. These farms where changes in land use practices are implemented and evaluated, and if successful becoming "Lighthouses" where other farmers and the public can see the practices and adopt or adjust them for their own needs. In addition, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with associated targets and indicators have been developed, and would seem to be a logical basis for evaluating the Living Labs. The paper points out the major problem here: no concrete suggestions on how to reach the targets, and thus no way for farmers to understand the relation to their enterprises. The paper goes on to discuss how to engage the farmers, perhaps by means of ecosystem services provided. The next section discusses research approaches to be taken by the scientific community, and recommends to tame so-called "wicked" problems by the concept of ecosystem services and defined thresholds. This by necessity requires interdisciplinary; the example is given of soil-water-atmosphere-plant simulation models. A fourth section on engaging the public discusses the "knowledge level" paradigm adopted from Hoosbeek and Bryant and the distinction between "truth", "right" and "real" as perceived by the public, as related to the Living Labs concept. A fifth section is on policy development, mainly on how the ecosystem services concept could be incorporated into policy, to make it operational. A sixth section summarizes a case study from the Netherlands (details presented elsewhere), showing defined soil health indicators, their thresholds, the results on the model farm, and their relation to ecosystem services and the SDGs. This sort of accounting is recommended to evaluate Living Labs and their potential to be Lighthouses. Finally, the author makes a set of recommendations, based on the previous sections.

Evaluation: The paper is provocative and interesting and there is much to consider for researchers and policy-makers. However, the sequence of arguments is somewhat rambling so that the main points can get lost in the detail. This reviewer had to read the paper several times to pick out the main threads of the argument that lead to the list of conclusions. For example, key points such as L181-4 and L231-234, which are main points of the paper, are somewhat buried in surrounding (interesting) detail.

Details:

1. The paper needs copyediting to remove incorrect and unnecessary punctuation and spacing, and some typos (e.g., L233).

2. At many places quotes from the SDGs are given, but nowhere a reference. https://sdgs.un.org/ is a general web page. The goals are listed at https://sdgs.un.org/goals but I could not find a publication with the wordings presented in this paper.

2. L147 the web reference is to a general page, not the document from which the quote was taken.

3. L146ff 'es' -> 'ES'. A reference is needed for the SDG definitions, see above.

4. L198-9 "So far, this fact has not widely been internalised by the various scientific disciplines." Maybe, but the statement is unsupported. As an opinion piece this could stand, but if

5. L203ff perhaps this paper is relevant: Falconi, S. M. and Palmer, R. N.: An interdisciplinary framework for participatory modeling design and evaluation. What makes models effective participatory decision tools?, Water Resour. Res., 53, 1625–1645, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019373, 2017.

6. L210-1 the frequentest approach to hypothesis testing and the rigid use of 5% (or any other) value of alpha is strongly discredited, and in any case does not lead to outright "acceptance", rather, strong evidence for or against a hypothesis. "Acceptance" just means the researcher was likely on the right track, and leads to more work. It should not be presented as the "truth". The popular press (New Scientist, Guardian) are responsible for confusiing the public on this, but even they have introduced Bayesian ideas to the public. The concept of a "tame" and limited research goal being the preferred target for many researchers is correct.

7. L307 "They can best be ignored." At least we hope they understand the logic by which the majority approved of the policy. That is also part of communication.

8. L472 incomplete reference to the Communiqué. Probably somewhere on https://gffa-berlin.de/en/.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-RC3
- AC6: 'Reply on RC3', Johan Bouma, 31 Oct 2022
  
  Comments are relevant to improve some aspects of the paper. Issues discussed are highly complex and I have tried to introduce a certain amount of systematics by writing seperate sections on farmers, researchers, the public and policies and arriving at conclusions that are specific. I hope that will do for most readers and , if not, their interest is sufficient to give it another try.
  The SDGs are quoted as indicated. The various SDGs have long descriptions in the original documents that have been shortened in a widely distributed pictogram, showing the 17 goals on one page. I have added a sentence to alert the reader to this pictogram. I followed the shortened titles.
  The statement that the need for inter- and transdisciplinarity when discussing SDGs has not yet been widely internalized is indeed an opinion. When looking at soils, meteo, hydrology and agronomy journals, though, one sees a strong and dominant disciplinary focus. I have added a sentence to express that. But.. I mention: “not widely”and not “not at all”!
  The Falconi reference is valuable. Added. Thanks.
  Those that refuse to join an emerging “WE” still need to be listened to but when a real dialogue turns out to be impossible , ignoring is the best option left it would seem, saving attention for more creative activities.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-AC6

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-307', Linda Maring, 13 Jul 2022

Living Labs and Lighthouses for all land uses
The article very well describes a practical approach for the Living Labs and Lighthouses concept of the Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe” (EC, 2021) on agricultural soils. The “Soil Mission” however has the ambition to cover all land uses to support Europe’s transition towards healthier soils. The discussions and literature on Soil health Living Labs (LL) and Lighthouses (LH) focus until now on agricultural settings, and although the proportion of urban and industrial soils within Europe is much lower than agricultural (forestry, and natural) land, a lot of “soil health benefits” can be achieved here. As stated in the Soil Mission Implementation plan “A Soil Deal for Europe” there are: 2.8 million potentially contaminated sites, but only 24% of the sites are inventoried and by 2018 only 65.500 have been remediated; only 13% of urban development takes place development on recycled urban land; and next to that urban and industrial soils can contribute with their ecosystem services to many challenges such as climate change, water regulation, biodiversity etc. (Van der Meulen & Maring, 2018)
To be able to cover all land uses in the 100 by the Soil Mission proposed LL (EC, 2021), it would be good to broaden the discussion on Soil Health LL and LH to urban and industrial land. There are several points, addressed in the article, that should be further discussed or elaborated to be able to also setup promising, practical and viable Soil Health LL and LH in urban and industrial settings.
1: scale and the regional / landscape multi-site criterion
Although not highlighted in the article, the Soil Mission Implementation Plan “A Soil Deal for Europe" indicates that living labs are collaborations between multiple partners that operate at regional or sub-regional level and coordinate experiments on several sites within a regional or sub-regional area (or working landscapes) The “multiple site demand” is logic for an agricultural LL with several agricultural sites in a specific soil-water-system. However, the demand to involve multiple sites within a region as a strict precondition for setting up a LL can hamper possibilities for industrial and urban sites. Because industrial and urban land use do not (in most cases) have such a direct link to soils as agriculture, the collation of sites in an industrial or urban LL could therefore better depend on the problem you want to solve or objectives you want to contribute to (such as contamination or land subsidence or climate change adaptation). While there will not always be multiple (industrial/urban) sites with the same challenge within the same region available, a LL setup in which a collection of individual single sites in different regions/countries working together on a common challenge could be more promising. And at the same time, such a LL would still be effective to explore, develop and implement soil health improvements, under different circumstances.
For industrial sites it can be even more challenging to setup soil health LL, because soil health is not the primary issue for many industrial actors. Solving contaminated soils to comply to regulation is. And emerging contamination would be a very interesting starting point because they occur everywhere, regulatory frameworks within the different member states are in most cases not yet in place, techniques and management practices are still under development. The successful practices can become lighthouses that can be applied elsewhere.
Of course, one can think of successful LL in a regional setting in urban or industrial land. E.g. a transformation site, where underused sites are being regenerated and transformed to different kinds of beneficial (soft or hard) land use; or industrial / urban areas where circular economy approaches are being applied and soil/sand could be reused within the region, etc. However, these are timely processes. To set up a LL here, the time should already be right, and actors should be already engaged.
2: soil health for urban and industrial sites
Soil health is defined as “the continued capacity of soils to support ecosystem services” and is assessed through a set of proposed, measurable indicators (A Soil Deal for Europe). In Veerman et al, 2020), quoted by Bouma et al, 2022, underlying the commented article: soil health indicators are linked to the “needs of growing roots”: (i) lack of pollutants; (ii) good soil structure; (iii) relatively high organic matter contents; (iv) high soil biodiversity; (v) favorable soil moisture regimes (newly added); and (vi) favorable soil fertility.
These soil health indicators are practical and completely logical for agricultural use. However, for industrial and urban land (that is not likely going to transform to other land use in the near future), and where the biomass production is not the primary function, it would be good to assess if all these indicators should be equally important, or if we should develop another practical set of indicators linked to a specific land use and that take into account the for that land use important ecosystem services and objectives. When looking at the current soil health indicators, lack of pollutants remains a strong and valuable indicator, while we can relate it to human and ecological health. Structure and carbon content and soil moisture can be linked to climate change adaptation and mitigation objectives. These can be of importance, mainly in urban areas, but also industrial areas can benefit. Biodiversity can obviously be linked to biodiversity objectives that most urban areas will endorse. For industrial areas this is likely a more secondary objective (“nice to have”). Soil fertility could also be related to climate adaptation in terms of being the basis for green areas, but is probably not so relevant, also because urban and industrial greens will be chosen on other criteria than biomass production (biodiversity, attractiveness, resilience & robustness, native species, etc.). At this point it would be interesting to think if other soil health indicators could be of relevance for these land uses.
3: SDGs and ecosystem services as central concepts to a LL
For Living Labs, one could take the Soil Mission’s objectives (six “soil threaths”, and 2 more general objectives: increase soil literacy and; Reduce the EU global footprint on soils) as starting point. The article proposes SDGs and/or Ecosystem Services (ESS) delivery. SDGs can a good starting point for urban and industrial land use, because they are adopted by all member states and are recognizable for municipalities, companies/industries. SDG allow better insight in the multifunctionality of land and the different tradeoffs and synergies (in a broader sense than soil) than when we focus on battling soil threats. As stated in the article, the SDG targets can remain rather vague when applied on a (series of) sites. The ESS concept can help making the objectives more measurable. But: when using multiple concepts, which need to be communicated to a broader audience, it would be good to use a conceptual model (CM) at the start of a LL, to describe the relations between SDGs – ESS - soil health – land use. The CM can support the narrative, show how they interact, how ESS can strengthen or weaken each other and how land management practices can be of influence. This should go beyond the LL scale itself, adverse effects on soil health elsewhere, as a result of the LL practice should be noted and avoided. This also relates with the Soil Mission Objective “Reduce the EU global footprint on soils”.
4: Thresholds to determine whether a LL becomes a LH
In the article, the SDGs are translated to measurable ESS (production of healthy food, water quality (link to Water Framework Directive, Nitrate directive) Energy, in terms of emission of greenhouse gases and carbon capture, biodiversity preservation and soil health (Life on land, SDG15)). Thresholds are being proposed for assessing whether a LL is a success and becomes a LH (When the soil is healthy and all ESS reach the threshold). For agricultural soils, there is quite some data on what a “normal” yield is on a specific soil. A threshold can be derived from this. For energy use and biodiversity this is already more difficult as shown in the article. For ecosystem services performance on urban and industrial sites (this can be the same set of ESS as used in the article, or an adapted set for the specific land use) data of what a normal performance of ESS is on a specific soil at a specific land use are not so easy to retrieve or lacking. When setting up urban and industrial LL, the indicators and thresholds should be carefully considered and, as is suggested in the article, practical cost and effort efficient measuring / monitoring methods should be developed / used.
Another consideration is if it is enough to comply with (upcoming) legislation / regulation (as the example in the article of water quality, which is very practical to choose as a threshold) or if we want to actually increase the performance of a certain ESS. For agricultural use, the primary ESS is retaining or improving yield while improving long term soil health, water quality, biodiversity, energy use, can be seen here as important, but are described more as boundary conditions. For other land uses, other ESS (biodiversity, energy) can be more important. It is therefore advisable when setting up a LL to think about the level of ambition for each of the chosen ESS and allow for a different order of importance and therefor for different thresholds.
Finally, some food for thought on Lighthouses: A Living Lab site becomes according to the article a Lighthouse when all set thresholds for soil health / ESS performance are reached. But is such a strict definition for a Soil Health Lighthouse needed or can we also define other “Lighthouses” that can emerge from the LL. Can a LH also showcase a cheap / easy / effective monitoring method for ESS performance? Can a lighthouse show 1 specific management practice that promotes just one or a few instead of all ESS in the LL? Or can a Lighthouse showcase good and effective soil literacy / education examples without yet reaching all soil health targets? So: can we set different “success criteria” within a LL (next to reaching thresholds for soil health / ESS delivery) and if we reach them, does that site than qualify as a LH on that specific objective?
5: Business models for the LL
The Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe” mentions thanew (policy) incentives and business models are needed to reward soil beneficial practices by land managers, agri-food system players and other actors across value chains. An important part when designing a LL is to consider the business model during the LL lifespan but also afterwards (Lighthouse, and when it becomes “business as usual”).
Subsidies can be a tool to change our way of working, and support soil health. The article mentions potential targeted subsidies (from the CAP) to improve ecosystem performance, which is a very nice example. For urban and industrial soils possibilities for subsidies and rewarding mechanisms for improving soil health and ESS should also be further investigated. Also avoided costs and a rewarding system for solving problems (such as contamination) could be part of a business model. As mentioned in some examples in the article also the phase after the LL should also be further investigated for industrial and urban LL.
A good business model can contribute to the uptake of good practices by others and therefor to the upscaling from LL/LH experimenting to “the real world”.
6: actor involvement for the LL
As a final point: in Living Labs cocreation with multiple actors is a criterion. Ideally land users, scientists, policy makers and citizens collaborate within the LL setting. The article mentions the collaboration between government, people and science. It would be interesting to further elaborate the argumentation why the involvement of citizens on the topic of soil health – a specific land use is needed. "Because LL need to have the involvement of citizens" is not a good reason, nor for agricultural, nor for other soils. Also, without citizens the land use management can change by land owners in collaboration with policy makers and/or scientists. But, citizen awareness contributing to the willingness to pay more for sustainable products, change in consumption patterns or demands to trade systems is a more valid reason that can strengthen the business model. For other land uses than agricultural, especially urban, the citizen is a primary actor while the citizen is a land user and, in many cases, also owner. For industrial soils, the citizen stands further away and would not necessarily need to be involved in the LL setting, while land user, scientist and policy maker could be a strong coalition here. Again here, the link to and benefit from healthy soils need to be made clear when involving the citizen in a LL. So, for each setting the actor engagement and “what’s in it for them”, what are common grounds and shared objectives should be determined to ensure effective actor engagement.
EC, 2021 A Soil Deal for Europe. 100 living labs and lighthouses to lead the transition towards healthy soils by 2030. Implementation plan. DG Research and Innovation https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/research_and_innovation/funding/documents/soil_mission_implementation_plan_final_for_publication.pdf
Bouma, J. de Haan, J.J. and Dekkers, M.S. 2022 Exploring Operational Procedures to Assess Ecosystem Services on Farm Level, including the Role of Soil Health. Soil Systems, 6,34. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems6020034
Van der Meulen, S.M., Maring, L., 2018 Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services- Soil ecosystems. SOILS4EU report. http://www.worldsoilday2017.eu/pdfs/Soils4EU_D1.2_ecosystemservices_MAES.pdf
Veerman, C.; Pinto Correia, T.; Bastioli, C.; Biro, B.; Bouma, J.; Cienciala, E.; Emmett, B.; Frison, E.A.; Grand, A.; Hristov, L.; et al. 2020. Caring for Soil Is Caring for Life—Ensure 75% of Soils Are Healthy by 2030 for Food, People, Nature and Climate, Independent Expert Report; European Commission (EC): Luxembourg.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on comment by Dr. L.Maring.', Johan Bouma, 13 Jul 2022
  
  I welcome the comments of Dr. Maring. Indeed, even though agriculture occupies the largest land area in the EU, other forms of land use are also very important when considering attempts to reach the SDGs ( comment 2). As is pointed out, urban land use and reclaiming polluted industrial sites offer unique challenges. The same holds for forestry, that is not mentioned. In contrast to agriculture, LL’s could indeed be focused on particular problems to be solved that can well be tested in an international context as they are not site-specific. And, indeed, attention for new pollutants is urgent ( e.g. PFAS).
  Comment 1: Indeed, the LL concept is based on multiple seperate sites, an aspect that was not addressed in my article, although implicitly indicated by emphasizing that farmers face “wicked” problems with no simple magic solution. The farm being studied by the cited Bouma et al ( 2022) paper occurred on a well drained calcareous light clay soil and did not yet meet thresholds for the various ecosystem services. Other farms on comparable soils ( to be part in future of a regional LL network) may do so following unique and inspiring management practices, qualifying them to be :”Lighthouses” for this particular soil condition. Every farmer is different. The decision to publish results for one farm, exploring techniques and procedures to be used, was pragmatic. To obtain the required 10-15 farms would have taken years and would have come too late. Let me remind the reader that a review of progress on the Mission concept is planned for the end of 2023. ( EC, 2021). Also , the council of ministers of the EU has recently confirmed this by stating:”review of the missions has to proceed by December 31, 2023, before adopting any decision on creating new missions or on continuing, terminating or redirecting ongoing European missions. ( Council of the Eur.Union, 2022). The council is concerned about governing structures of the missions and integration with many ongoing existing programs.
  Comment 3: Considering the complex relations between the SDGs, ecosystem services, soil health and land use and management, it would indeed be good to develop a conceptual descriptive model, as suggested, that describes in an accessible manner the ultimate intentions of all these activities and the role of the various elements in doing so. Indeed, “framing”the SDG story in accessible language is a top priority. This should indeed include external effects that could have an impact on the global footprint: “act locally, think globally”.
  Comment 4: Only thresholds for water quality have so far been defined ( EU Water Guideline with the nitrate directive.). However, as pointed out in the article, so far regional thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions, carbon capture, biodiversity preservation and soil degradation ( to be expressed by soil health) have not yet been defined. But even if this is done in future, thresholds should reflect the state-of-the-art in terms of research and should be revised when needed. Not too often, though, because that would confuse the stakeholders. The thoughts of Dr Maring about Lighthouses are interesting but I see problems in having Lighthouses with different light intensities and would prefer to have the concept to be resticted to entities that satisfy the various ecosystem-thresholds for that location c.q. region. Elsewhere, I have compared a modern farmer with a chess-player, playing simultaneously on five boards. While the chess rules are clear, those for ecosystem services are not. If he or she is successful, only he or she deserves the emission of a full blast of light from the lighthouse. Of course, successful methods should be communicated and this is an important part of the overall communication strategy.
  Comment 5: Good to remember that sustainable development entails not only environmental aspects but social and economic aspects as well. A good business plan is indeed an essential part of the entire package. In Europe we can learn from the US National Soil Health Institute that has a strong economic program, focused on the adoption of regenerative agriculture ( www. soilhealthinstitute.org).
  Comment 6: Citizen engagement is strongly promoted by the EU ( EU, 2021, Dro et al, 2022). Successful citizen engagement in biological programs, for example by counting birds or determining vegetation types, is somewhat difficult to extrapolate to soil health programs in the context of sustainable development. Soils, after all, are invisible below the surface and soil characterisation is therefore a rather professional activity. Still, it is essential to communicate results of sustainable management and the role of soil by on-site demonstrations that can include selected observations that can easily be made , for example testing soil resistance with penetrometers as an indicator for soil structure. This form of citizen engagement is crucial to contribute to their better understanding of e.g. food prices ,consumption patterns or the role of city greenery .
  Cited references:
  European Commission (2021). European Missions. Communication from the Commission to the Eur. Parliament, the Council, the Eur. Econ. and Social Cie and the Committee of the Regions. COM (2021), 609 final. Brussels.
  Dro, C., K.Kapfinger, R.Rakio. 2022. European Missions: Delivering on Europe’s Strategic Priorities. R&I paper series. Policy Brief. EU-DG Science and Innovation.
  Council of the Eur.Union. Proceedings meeting on June 10, 2022 ( 10124/22). RECH 369; COMPET 489. EU Brussels.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-AC1
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-307', Alexandre Wadoux, 12 Aug 2022

The manuscript discusses a roadmap for “Living labs” from the Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe”, which can then become “Lighthouses” when thresholds are met. Thresholds are based on SDG, which are translated to measurable ecosystem services. Bouma advocates Living Labs as a way to engage various participants in a bottom-up approach that will eventually improve communication between local and regional stakeholders, farmers, the general public and the policy makers. When a Living lab satisfies the target and indicators of the SDG, a Lighthouse is established. The lighthouse then constitutes a local example from which a number of actors will get information and from which future regulations can be thought.
The main idea of Living labs and Lighthouse discussed in this paper is essential to address the rather abstract debates about SGD and to realize the goals or the EU Green Deal. There are to my opinion two problems to realize the goals of the SDG: i) some goals are expressed in terms of means (to reach the goals) instead of a regulation specifying thresholds values (as explained clearly by Bouma in the Introduction ), and ii) we lack a framework to assess soil contributions to realizing the SDG, so that it is still difficult to insert soil effectively in the societal and political discourse (Wadoux et al. 2021, Challenge 10).
My main comments are about the joint learning approaches that are the core of the Living labs and Lighthouses and which I think deserve more attention. While most of my comments below are about Section 4 (Public engagement) they also relate to the other sections because the degree and quality of participation is expected to impact the outcomes of Living labs as a whole.
Overall, I think this paper is a useful contribution to the debate and to the pressing issues of realizing the SDG and the EU Green Deal.
Should we abandon the term of citizen science?
As a personal note, I do not like the term citizen science. First, should one be a citizen to participate? The obvious answer is no. Citizen is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “a legally recognized subject or national of a state […] having certain rights”. I would rather prefer the general term of public participation or that of non-expert individual/participant. Second, citizen science is also difficult to clearly define and usually has two meanings. It originally comes from Irwin’s (1995) and was articulated around two points: i) “Science should address the needs and concerns of citizens, and seek to meet those needs” and ii) “The process of producing reliable knowledge could be developed and enacted by citizens themselves. People bring into science such things as local contextual knowledge and real-world geographic, political, and moral constraints generated outside of formal scientific institutions”. Another meaning comes from the well-known work of Bonney (see the report of Bonney et al. 2009) and is perhaps the most popular today. Bonney describes citizen science as non-scientists participating by contributing to scientific data. The definition of Irwin is about democratizing science, whereas that of Bonney is about public contribution to a very narrow part of the science (data collection). To my understanding this manuscript refers to the first definition of citizen science but surprisingly in his answer to the first CC (Comment 6), Bouma refers to projects where citizens (non-experts) contribute data, which then refers to the second definition above (that of Bonney). It would be useful to the reader to clarify this point and how citizen science is defined and articulated in this manuscript.
Balancing the different expectations and outcomes
Joint learning between various participants is, in my opinion, the right way to go to address complex or “wicked” situations. It is well described in the manuscript and is essential for Living labs. The main problem with joint learning, however, is to strive the right balance between the different outcomes and expectations of the participants. In a synthesis of public participation in scientific research, Shirk et al., (2012) concluded that for addressing complex problems in environment and society, projects should generally include outcomes for science, outcomes for individuals and outcomes for socio-ecological systems. In this manuscript it is clear how the outcomes for the socio-ecological system will address the expectations (i.e. address the SDG, better policy development), but I am not so clear from reading Sections 4 and 6 about the outcomes for research and for individuals. Simply said: why would the public and scientists like to engage in living labs? What’s in there for them? How to manage their expectations with respect to the potential outcomes of the Living labs?
Degree of participation
Citizen science and participation of non-experts to Living labs could describe a wide spectrum of approaches. How much power can and should the public have in the outcome? I imagine that the degree of involvement (not only of the public, but also of the scientists and farmers) will determine the expectation on the outcomes. The degree of participation is often evaluated in terms of power (see, for example, the ladder of participation) over the project in which people engage. At this point it would be interesting to define the expected degree of engagement in the joint learning phase. This would be of relevance for later assessing whether the joint learning is a success or not.
Quality of participation
The need for a bottom-up approach is acknowledged early in the manuscript (at line 94), and should be emphasized. But is it really a bottom-up approach if the participants i) do not initiate the project (Living labs) and ii) do not define themselves what are the targets and indicators to evaluate the threshold values? To my understanding a bottom-up approach means that the Livings labs are a co-creation of the farmers/public/scientists while in fact it comes from the initiative of the EU Soil Mission. Innovations in Livings labs will occur within the boundaries of a somewhat top-down approach. Shouldn’t we acknowledge that?
Further, bottom-up will also be dependent of context-relevant information and of the quality of participation: credibility of the participants and trust among participants, among others. How to ensure high-quality participation? How to ensure that the participants get their interests served, while maintaining the desired outcomes? Ample attention should be paid to the quality of participation in Living labs because this will determine many of the outcomes: such as social learning and for retaining the participants and public interest in the long term.
Policy development
I fully agree with Bouma at lines 301-304: innovative management practices are potentially more successful when environment-oriented organization are trusted. I also agree that policies are successful when the majority of people feel that the policy is right. This is in fact the basis for modern democratic systems where the majority decide. But how to deal with the various and sometimes conflicting opinions of what is right for the majority? In Section 4 the various steps of dialogue and convergence do not include any citizen until the “WE” where groups of interested citizen can come in, but only when the Living lab resulted in a Lighthouse. Isn’t a bit late? So citizen can come in only at the end of the project, that is, when a Living lab is already a Lighthouse. This relates to the degree of participation that I mentioned above and the definition of citizen science. What’s in there for the public?
Should we also ignore the group that does not agree no matter what is being proposed? Bouma has a strong claim on it at line 307, but to me many of the farming styles that are currently proposed originally come from agricultural styles that were for long considered as utopic, alternative, and, in any cases, very minor compared to the mainstream agricultural styles. Take the example of agroecology in France, now institutionalized and conventional but considered until the 2000s relatively restricted to few farms. See Bellon and Ollivier (2012, in French).
References
Bellon, S., & Ollivier, G. (2012). L’agroécologie en France: l’institutionnalisation d’utopies. L’agroécologie en Argentine et en France. Regards croisés, Paris, l’Harmattan, 55-90.
Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T. Shirk, J., & Wilderman, C. C. (2009). Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education CAISE Inquiry Group Reports. Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education.
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shirk, J. L., Ballard, H. L., Wilderman, C. C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., ... & Bonney, R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology and society, 17(2).
Wadoux, A. M. C., Heuvelink, G. B., Lark, R. M., Lagacherie, P., Bouma, J., Mulder, V. L., ... & McBratney, A. B. (2021). Ten challenges for the future of pedometrics. Geoderma, 401, 115155.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-CC2
AC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-307', Johan Bouma, 15 Aug 2022

Reply to comment on egusphere-2022-307.
Alexandre Wadoux has made some highly valuable contributions to this discussion. Citizen science was not mentioned in the paper. Reports of the European Union strongly emphasize citizen engagement ( EC, 2021, Dro et al 2022) though the latter report also mentions citizen science in section 4.1. But Wadoux is correct in stating that too little attention was paid to the role of citizens. As citizen science is a widely used term, discussion of the concept is needed.
Science can be defined as:”a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe” ( numerous references, among them Bunge,1998). Following Irwin (1995), citizens can articulate concerns and needs and can contribute knowledge to the assessment of sustainable development (in the context of this paper). Figure 1 ( line 260) is relevant here as it indicates various forms of knowledge, where the contributions by citizens at large will usually be of the K1-K2 type. But next to this, citizens can also contribute to building knowledge by gathering data as suggested by both Irwin (1995 ) and Bonney et al (2009). Examples elsewhere are counts of birds and observation of certain plants. In the context of invisible soils, activity of citizens is more complicated but can, for example, involve measurement of soil structure resistance by penetrometers and operation of proximal sensing equipment, when properly supervised.
But there is more. In 2015, 193 Governments approved the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Governments guide but also represent and, ideally, inspire their citizens. (”WE”, line 267-283). When SDG’s will not be met by 2030, this will be seen in the current policy discours as a failure of Governmental Policy. Instead, it is a failure of all of us ( “WE”) , to take steps to a more sustainable world. Unfortunately, Governments have failed to present the SDGs to their citizens in terms of a major societal challenge. When I mention SDGs at various talks, eyes tend to glaze over. There is an unfortunate gap between the policy arena and their citizens. I refer to a recent inquiry showing that 88% of Dutch dairy farmers don’t trust Government ( line 110). In any case, citizens and their action groups have” articulated concerns and needs” ( Irwin, 1995) contributing significantly to establish a climate favorable to adopt the SDGs in 2015. This should be acknowledged as a substantial contribution.
But now, a next step has to be taken urgently as goals have to be reached by 2030. SDGs and environmental ecosystem services have been defined and they need to be measured to see whether or not individual farms ( or other forms of land-use operations) meet thresholds for each of these indicators. This requires direct no-nonsense contact between farmers and researchers. No more time for endless and all too often inconclusive discussions about desirable farming systems ( lines 118-122). All systems will have to meet the thresholds and, if so, they qualify as an inspiring : “Lighthouse”. However, thresholds for the various ecosystem services still need to be discussed and citizens will again have a role here, particularly because many thresholds will need to have a regional character. As mentioned in the article, only groundwater quality ( SDG6) has so far a defined threshold. Greenhouse gas emissions/carbon capture need a primarily technical approach also considering national emission levels. For example, in the Netherlands agriculture only contributes 10% to greenhouse gas emissions while industry and traffic contribute 80%. It is clear where policies will have to focus! Thresholds for soil degradation (SDG 15) can be expressed by soil health but thresholds for biodiversity ( also SDG15) still present a big unresolved issue. Focus only on nature quality in the NATURE 2000 areas defined by the European Union?
In summary, following the definition of Irwin (1995) citizens had a role in establishing the SDGs and, after essentailly technical activities at the Living Labs, again in participating in defining socially acceptable ( regional) threshold values for, in particular, biodiversity preservation. Once :”Lighthouses” have been established citizens have a major role in spreading the word as indicated in the paper.
Will different expectations of participants in the sustainability discours , as discussed, be satisfied? Indeed: “what’s in it for me”? Farmers will be satisfied as their income increases partly by qualifying for subsidies but particularly because the new system focusing on providing ecosystem services will present much needed clarity in terms of goals be achieved. Citizens should be satisfied and inspired when their overall role, as discussed above, receives more recognition and when positive results are reached in the real world. How about the science arena, and soil science in particular?
The role of science to develop measuring methodology will serve to illustrate their crucial function. By emphasizing the contribution of soil science to the sustainability debate in terms of :”..contributing to ..ecosystem services” ( line 201) the soil science contribution could be lost in the interdisciplinary turmoil and its role might become unclear which would be unacceptable. ( Wadoux et al, 2021). Of course, soil science provides a direct threshold for SDG 15 ( soil degradation) in terms of a soil health assessment but it would indeed be relevant to also and more clearly address the effect of soils on the other SDGs. Soil moisture and nutrient regimes are crucial for production of healthy food (SDG2&3), water quality ( SDG6) and greenhouse gas emission/ carbon capture ( SDG13), as well as biodiversity preservation ( SDG15). Modeling can show what effects inadequate soil health can have for each of these SDGs as was demonstrated by a series of papers for SDG2 by Bonfante et al ( 2019, 2020a,b) also considering climate change. Such examples are needed to illustrate the crucial role of soils in sustainable development, moving beyond SDG15.
Alexandre Wadoux is correct in stating that success directly depends on the personal attitudes of participants. Not all soil scientists have the needed level of social intelligence while not all farmers are open to a broad discussion. Careful selection of participants is essential. And, indeed, the :”Living Lab” approach has been presented topdown but can positively be seen as both a statement of trust in participatory research as well as an open and urgent invitation to act as no specific roadmap is presented. The research community needs to rise now to the occasion.
Cited references.
Bonfante, A., Terribile, F., and Bouma, J. 2019. Refining physical aspects of soil quality and soil
health when exploring the effects of soil degradation and climate change on biomass production:
an Italian case study. SOIL 5, 1-14. (https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-1-2019).

Bonfante, A., A.Basile and J.Bouma. 2020a. Exploring the effect of varying soil organic matter contents on current and future moisture supply capacities of six Italian soils. Geoderma 361 .(https://doi.org/10.106/j.geoderma.2019.114079)
Bonfante, A., A.Basile and J.Bouma. 2020b. Targeting the soil quality and soil health concepts when aiming for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the EUGreen Deal . SOIL , 6, 1-14. (https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-6-1-2020)
Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T. Shirk, J., & Wilderman, C. C. (2009). Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education CAISE Inquiry Group Reports. Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education.
Bunge, M. 1998. The scientific approach: Philosophy of Science . Vol 1. From problem to theory. Routledge,3-50. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6. New York.
Dro, C., Kapfinger, K. and Rakic, R. 2022. European Missions: delivering on Europe’s strategic priorities. Eur. Cie. DG Res, and Innovation. R&I paper series. Policy brief. Publ. Office Eur, Union. Luxembourg. doi10.2777/69252.
European Commission (2021). European Missions. Communication from the Commission to the Eur. Parliament, the Council, the Eur. Econ. and Social cie and the Committee of the Regions. COM (2021), 609 final. Brusssels.
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wadoux, A. M. C., Heuvelink, G. B., Lark, R. M., Lagacherie, P., Bouma, J., Mulder, V. L., ... & McBratney, A. B. (2021). Ten challenges for the future of pedometrics. Geoderma, 401, 115155.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-AC2
CC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-307', Anna Krzywoszynska, 06 Sep 2022

This paper proposes the Living Labs as sites which can help European societies achieve Sustainable Development Goals. Bouma suggests that LL can address the issue of a ‘lack of clarity’ around SDGs, and that this can be done by 1. developing locally specific measurements of environmental thresholds, specifically ecosystem services, and 2. developing locally specific practices for staying within those thresholds. This is underpinned by the LL process of bringing land owners, scientists, and the broader public together in a learning process. The LLs thus present a key site in which to develop best-practice examples of practices which would enable societies to meet the ‘lofty goals’ (Bouma’s term) expressed by the SDGs.
LLs are thus imagined as places in which practices are developed to fit land use activities (e.g. agriculture) within ‘threshold values’, and which on achieving such practices are transformed into a site of education and communication – a Lighthouse (LH).
I am very supportive of the importance granted in this paper to LLs a key sites for shared learning between different societal groups, including between scientists, land owners, local inhabitants, agri-food system actors, and policymakers at different levels. However, I urge the author, and indeed the wider LL literature. to expand their thinking about the ambition of the LLs to the composition of issues themselves, not only to their resolution. Wicked problems, such as soil health, can only be addressed through collaboration on the problem framing. This is well established in social science literature.
LLs: who determines the framing?
The contribution of the scientific community imagined in the paper is focused on the interdisciplinary modelling of ecosystem services in specific LLs. It is hoped that by defining ecosystem services the research community can ‘tame the wicked problems’ (231-235) related to land use change. In other words, it seems that Bouma is proposing that the solution to resolving the conflicts around land use change is ensuring that (trusted) scientists define the nature and extent of the problem, and so set a frame within which solutions can be found.
This assumption is problematic in that it does not address the foundation of wicked problems – i.e. the conflict around the nature of the issue. Bouma seems to suggest that it is groups of scientists should who should be assigned the authority to define the nature of the problem across different LLs (the performance of a given site in relation to SDGs as assessed through environmental services modelling), and that this definition should then be accepted by the land owners and indeed the wider community gathered around a specific Living Lab. In other words, Bouma seems to argue that scientists somehow have the power and authority to cut the Gordian knot of wicked problems to the satisfaction of all parties.
However, the nature of wicked problems is precisely that the scientific framing of issues is only one the competing problem definitions. There is no reason to believe that a scientific definition of a LL as a set of ecosystem services to be satisfied within the thresholds linked to SDGs will be seen as a legitimate framing of the issue by land owners or other LL-related groups. Indeed, experience suggests that scientists will not have the authority to impose such a framing on the situation, and that their attempts to do so will be contested.
While the section 4 on engaging the public stresses the importance of joint learning to the proposed LL process, it is not clear what the extent of this joint learning is, and most importantly whether this joint learning is focused on the framing of the situation (what is the nature of the problem), or only on its resolution (how to solve the problem) – it seems to me to be the latter.
Refocusing LLs on finding shared problem frames
In line with much of the existing literature on public participation in science, I instead draw attention to the importance of focusing on the problem definition itself as a the key space of knowledge co-production around environmental or land use controversies (see e.g. Turnhout et al 2019, Tsouvalis and Waterton 2012). For a wicked problem to be ‘tamed’, the co-creation of innovation process must start at the problem definition itself.
I appreciate that my comment goes to the very heart of the issue of the design of a Living Lab, and specifically the question of framing or problem definition. Living Labs were originally created within the industrial sector in order to bring users into contact with innovations in a pre-market space. These original LLs therefore had a very strong ownership of the issue at hand – the scope of the LL was determined by the LL creators (e.g. a company) (see Puerari et al 2018). A pre-existing shared definition of the problem between different groups in the LL seems to be a persistent element of the LL design, as suggested by this definition from 2011: Living Labs are “multi-stakeholder platform as a (voluntary or statutory) body, comprising different stakeholders, who perceive the same problem, realize their own respective interdependencies, and come together to agree on the best action strategies for solving it” (Molinari et al 2011: 133). Indeed, in keeping with this pre-determined framing approach, the LL process proposed by Bouma can be seen to fall into the ‘trial’ typology of LLs discussed in Bulkley et al’s (2019) study of Urban Living Labs, in that it ‘seeks to limit the indeterminate conditions that it encounters, often confining the ULL in both space and time. It is at heart a form of disciplinary power. (…) this is a form of laboratory that is concerned with securing particular outcomes’.
However, more authors are now calling for a widening of the LL remit to the co-creation of values and issue frames themselves (e.g. Puerari et al 2018), for example by starting the co-creation process by exploring potential desirable futures (Hajer and Vertsteeg 2019), and by recognising the importance of rooting the LL process in a shared narrative of place and a sense of belonging (Frantzeskaki et al 2019). In a paper which will be especially relevant to Bouma, Zivkovic (2018) indeed argues that LLs are better at addressing complex rather than wicked problems, which require a system perspective and focus on creating a shared framing.
Towards an ecosystem of LL as experiments in problem framing
What would collaboration on problem framings look like in practice? The model proposed by Bouma in this paper would ideally be only one of many approaches trialled within the LL landscape on how to successfully achieve SDGs (or other objectives). The success of such a model should not be presumed, but rather the uptake, use and varied implementation of such a framework as a way of organising a LL should be studied.
The example cited in section 6 case study can be used to illustrate this. In Bouma’s proposal, one of the environmental services modelled is ‘yield’, for which the acceptable threshold is set to be 80%. This presupposes that there is an agreement between different members of the LL on what kind of crop should be grown, and what constitutes a desirable yield level. However, as academic and public debates on the futures of agri-food systems show, what crops are desirable for the future of eating and land use, and what a desirable yield looks like, are highly contested, and open to change.
Instead of pre-framing achieving 80% of yield of an existing crop as the conditions of success for this LL, a more participatory approach is needed. This approach would try to resolve the ’wickedness’ of the problem of land use by creating a conversation between the LL stakeholders (including eaters) about what kind of land use and crop type would be desirable and feasible in the LL. This should include a conversation about what kind of market structures would be needed to support land use change (in contrast to Bouma’s assumption that market structures are outside the scope of the LL, lines 185-189). Once a desirable land use and crop change has been identified which responds to the needs and ambitions of the LL stakeholders, the LL experiments with the new land use, farming, and market model. The success of the model is similarly evaluated by the LL stakeholders (including scientists and researchers), and the potential passing to a Lightouse stage is similarly decided by the LL group. Existing social-ecological groups, such as agroecological community supported agriculture initiatives, can be seen as examples of such a process – the LL model enriches them through a greater collaboration with the sciences.
In this way, LL move from being experiments in the solution of pre-defined problems, to experiments in the joint understanding of and resolution of issues. In my view, and in line with the public participation scholarship in the social sciences, the definition of the LLs proposed should recognise both the frameworks for the definition of problems, and the practices for their resolution, as objects of LL experimentation

References
Bulkeley, Harriet, et al. "Urban living labs: governing urban sustainability transitions." Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 22 (2016): 13-17.
Frantzeskaki, Niki, Frank Van Steenbergen, and Richard C. Stedman. "Sense of place and experimentation in urban sustainability transitions: The Resilience Lab in Carnisse, Rotterdam, The Netherlands." Sustainability science 13.4 (2018): 1045-1059.
Hajer, Maarten, and Wytske Versteeg. "Imagining the post-fossil city: why is it so difficult to think of new possible worlds?." Territory, Politics, Governance 7.2 (2019): 122-134.
Molinari, F. Living Labs as Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for the eGovernance of Innovation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Tallinn, Estonia, 26–29 September 2011; Estevez, E., Janssen, M., Eds.; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 131–140. [Google Scholar]
Puerari, Emma, et al. "Co-creation dynamics in urban living labs." Sustainability 10.6 (2018): 1893.
Tsouvalis, Judith, and Claire Waterton. "Building ‘participation’upon critique: The Loweswater care project, Cumbria, UK." Environmental Modelling & Software 36 (2012): 111-121.
Turnhout, Esther, Willemijn Tuinstra, and Willem Halffman. Environmental expertise: connecting science, policy and society. Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Zivkovic, Sharon. "Systemic innovation labs: a lab for wicked problems." Social Enterprise Journal (2018).

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-CC3
- AC3:
  'Reply on CC3', Johan Bouma, 08 Sep 2022
  Reply on comments by Anna Krzywoszynska.
  Comments by Anna K., largely based on the social-science literature, are highly relevant and helpful to better and more sharply focus the debate on Living Labs and Lighthouses. A reaction to some of her major comments:
  According to Anna K. , emphasis in the current article appears to be not so much on the :” composition of the issues”but on “their solution”. “Scientists define the nature and extent of the problem and set a frame within which solutions can be found”. This, however, was not the intended message of the article and rephrasing will be needed to make this clear. The 17 UN-SDGs of 2015, approved (!) by 193 Governments, have formulated goals, thresholds and indicators for sustainable development ( defining, in fact:”the nature and extent of the problem”). This was based on long discussions with the citizen and policy arena and scientists. The United Nations have already , in fact, “framed” the issue! We should not restart those discussions at this point in time but focus on ways to implement in the real world the intentions articulated in 2015. There is still much to do! Sure, consumers and markets are important but they are addressed directly or indirectly already by some of the SDGs and farmers would be wise to focus now on what all this implies for their particular enterprise. The Living Labs can make essential contributions in this particular context involving all participants, including scientists.
  
  As mentioned by the quoted Molinari et al 2011, the original concept of Living Labs was established in an urban context and was based on common agreement as to the definition of the problem being assessed. With the SDGs, conditions are fundamentally different. There are huge perception gaps between science, stakeholders and society when focusing on sustainable development. Most farmers still have an economic focus on their enterprise, and attention for water quality, biodiversity preservation and climate mitigation, required by the SDGs, is all too often seen as an ( abstract and offensive) outside intrusion on their entrepreneurship. Indeed, “ uptake,use and implementation of the framework” is what ultimately counts. How can we, therefore, reach a condition where societal goals, as articulated by the SDGs, are also internalized by land users, among which farmers are the largest group. Again, here Living Labs can play an essential role, particularly in defining thresholds for indicators that seperate the “good”from the “not yet good enough” ( note the positive framing). Such thresholds should be thoroughly discussed with all participants and should have a regional character.
  
  Interactive studies at a given Living Lab don’t start with “defining problems”. Scientists should start by listening and observing the practices of a given farmer, often the results of many years of experience. Next, scientists will define how this particular system scores in terms of the various SDG-indicators and their thresholds. This will provide much needed clarity for all involved. Attention can then be focused on improving ecosystem services that don’t meet their threshold.Information by farmers from other Living Labs on the same type of soil, rather than topdown scientific advice, may be most effective here.
  
  I feel that problems are “wicked”rather than just :”complex”. There are no simple straightforward solutions to sustainability problems, but, rather, a series of alternative options or scenarios: “Desirable Futures” as mentioned by Hajer and Vertsteeg , 2018. Different farmers working on the same type of soil in a given region can meet ecosystem thresholds in different ways. That’s why good documentation of management practices being followed at a given Living lab is essential.
  
  Joint learning should, in my view, involve both the “nature” of the problem and its “solution”.By assisting farmers to meet sustainability thresholds, thereby showing society at large how farming can contribute to sustainable development , scientists can play a key role in closing the current gap between science and society. They have undeniable “power” by way of their expertise but certainly not the “authority” to define management or rules and regulations that form and should form the domains of farmers and the policy arena. Demonstrating modern agricultural production systems that may be considered to be sustainable( as they meet the various SDG thresholds), can be a crucial contribution to “joint understanding and solution of issues”, the more so since they require an integrated view that avoids getting lost in details.
  
  Interesting to note that Anna K. focuses in this SOIL journal on ecosystem services and not on soil health. When addressing soil scientists there is still resistance to define soil health as : .. contributing to ecosystem services in line with the SDGs and the Green Deal”. ( Veerman et al, 2020). But soils cannot do it alone; an interdisciplinary effort is essential to which, no doubt, soil science contributes essential information. Emphasizing that contribution, as I have consistantly tried to do, is more effective than pontifying about soils in general.
  
  The issue of a possible threshold yield of 80%Yw illustrates that the discussion takes place at different levels. SDG2 has been abbreviated as: “No More Hunger” and relates to the complete food chain from farm to fork. The farmer finds herself at the start of the foodchain, having to produce a sufficient quantity of healthy products that constitutes the economic basis of the enterprise. The 80%Yw for a standard crop tells us the theoretical attainable production level at a particular location with a particular soil, including the water regime while assuming that the plants receive adequate nutrients and there are no pests and diseases. If this level is not met, an analysis is needed of causes and when it is met it provides a starting point for experimentation with different crops and crop rotations within Living Labs on the same type of soil in the same climate zone.
  
  Cited reference:
  Veerman, C., Bastioli, C., Biro, B., Bouma, J., Cienciala, E., Emmett, B., Frison, E. A., Grand, A.,
  Filchev, L., Kriaučiūnienė, Z., Pinto Correia, T., Pogrzeba, M., Soussana, J-F., Vela, C., Wittkowski, R., 2020. Caring for soil is caring for life - Ensure 75% of soils are healthy by 2030 for food, people, nature and climate, Independent expert report, Eur. Comm. Publ. Office of the Eur. Union, Luxembourg,
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-AC3
RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-307', Kris Van Looy, 06 Oct 2022
The manuscript presents a framework for organizing the “Living labs” from the Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe”. In this framework LLs are transdisciplinary playgrounds to solve the wicked problems in current land use for reaching the healthy soils - determined in specific thresholds. These LLs can then become “Lighthouses” when those thresholds are met. Thresholds are based on SDG, which are translated to measurable ecosystem services.

If the paper really ambitions to propose the framing and draw the lines on how LLs and lighthouses under the Soil Mission should function, then I see a framework that is a bit narrow in my opinion, and a structure that will make them not deliver on promise or in time.

Overall, three elements in the manuscript seem problematic or too restrictive in my view:

Firstly, the general target of establishing LLs is presented here as investigating and demonstrating the achievement of the prior established targets; I would think that for instance also the identification of specific targets in specific conditions could be subject for a LL. Should these not be laboratories to solve a broader question to what ‘sustainable soil management’ should look like, either from a technical view, or from a more social view, in a transdisciplinary way and through close collaboration of scientists with practitioners and society;

The manuscript focusses the transition from LL to Lighthouse; but in view of their different goals in the context of the Soil Deal for Europe targets, I would not like to wait for the 100LLs to reach the good soil health condition before first seeing them starting to work as lighthouses. We all know that for many soils restoring carbon stocks to target can take decades. I suggest we need lighthouses right away, and I believe they need a specific approach/construction for being successful – clearly distinct from the targets of a LL. Obviously it would not be beneficiary to end up with showcases that actually are not reaching the targets, but the ambition for defining lighthouses is to demonstrate ‘solutions’ that have proven their success in improving soil health; so, even if they do not reach the target by 100%, significantly improving a condition is also important to show, and perhaps more needed than a LL case of a high complexity that is only applicable under very specific conditions for instance.

The measurement of soil health targets is suggested to be in ecosystem services; but this is also a problematic aspect, since apart from crop yield not one soil ecosystem service is well quantified at this moment (or at least not in the sense that it can be applied at different scales (and at field level and over soil types), so it would take another twenty years to establish an evaluation framework for the soil deal and soil health law. Discussions and research on soil health indicators are taken up strongly at the moment, and of course the SDG and a translation in ecosystem services offers a framing, but should not be limiting that exercise (discussions on quantification of certain ecosystem services would lead us nowhere). This is also the weak part of the presented example; only the Yw is presented as quantitative indicator, and for the others we can go on for years. So, I would not follow the Ecosystem service framework for evaluation, since this is too far from the specific context of the soil health law.

In conclusion, I definitely concur with the paper’s intentions of providing some framing to the construction of LLs and Lighthouses for their transdisciplinary character, and with the other comments on the need for a specific social orientation and co-creation approach. My additional plea would be for a wider scope in targets for LLs – here restricted to farmland – with also LLs to investigate healthy urban soils, regenerative or circular land use forms, nature-based solutions for diffuse polluted soils, etc.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-RC1
- AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Johan Bouma, 08 Oct 2022
  
  This contribution by dr. Van Looy is particularly valuable as it illustrates the need to better explain some basic concepts involved. The:”Soil Deal for Europe” puts major emphasis on establishing at least 100 Living Labs and Lighthouses, resulting in healthy soils by 2030. Soil health is defined by :”the continued capacity of soils to support ecosystem services” to meet global committments such as the SDGs. A key message: soil health supports…. . The SDGs, not only defining seventeen goals but also targets and indicators, have been welcome in 2015 as they specified the until that time nebulous concept of sustainable development. Note that the SDGs have three dimensions: economic, social and environmental. We only deal with the environmental aspects in terms of providing ecosystem services and the ultimate judgement about the SGSs needs to consider the other two dimensions as well.
  Certainly, not only agricultural land use has to be considered but other uses as well, such as city greens, industrial soils and forests.(see first comment by Linda Maring) We focused on agriculture for a start as farmers constitute the largest group of land users. Individual farms can form Living Labs and a series of Labs can be established for a given soil type in a given region to express results of different forms of management. Reacting to the question by dr. Van Looy, some of these farms may, for example, already have achieved successful carbon capture and sharing their management schemes may inspire other farmers in the same region to innovate their management. We don’t have to wait 20 years! Van Looy worries that defining indicators and thresholds for LL’s will take too much time. But much data are already available to define the most important ecosystem services: producing sufficient quantities of healthy food ( SDG2&3); protecting water quality ( SDG6), reducing greenhouse gas emission and enhancing carbon capture (SDG13) and preserving biodiversity and combatting land degradation (SDG15). Defining thresholds, that should have a regional character for particular soil types, still needs some research, particularly for biodiversity ( see Bouma et al, 2022). Note that the ecosystem approach covers the entire farming system, way beyond the impact of soil. What, then, are the contributions by soils to achieve these ecosystem services? In this context, indicators for soil health have been defined by the Mission Board of Soil Health and Food ( Veerman et al, 2020). Note that the term “soil ecosystem services” is confusing as many scientific disciplines support ecosystem services. Also soils support…Again, many data are available in literature to show contributions by soil to the soil-water-plant-atmosphere system allowing determination of these indicators, while thresholds, again, will need more research. (see Bouma et al, 2022). We have advocated a “one-out, all-out” principle when deciding whether or not ecosystem services or soil health indicators have met their thresholds. This is clear for ecosystem services as an “average service” would be meaningless. For soils it avoids complicated procedures to define an average soil health value and clearly states that a soil is healthy or not. This procedure needs particular attention because soil health values have to be documented by 2030. And: “The healthier the soil the higher the contribution to ecosystem services”. The Soil Deal for Europe defines eight objectives that largely correspond with the soil indicators. The desertification objective is different but results in unhealthy soils and Living Labs in the same region on similar soils can hopefully show the way to innovative management combatting desertification, thereby resulting in a Lighthouse. Finally, Dr van Looy is correct in assuming that a “soil Lighthouse” can be established based on positive thresholds for soil health while the thresholds for ecosystem services for the complete farming system are not reached ( see the example by Bouma et al, 2022).
  Cited references:
  Veerman, C., Bastioli, C., Biro, B., Bouma, J., Cienciala, E., Emmett, B., Frison, E. A., Grand, A.,
  Filchev, L., Kriaučiūnienė, Z., Pinto Correia, T., Pogrzeba, M., Soussana, J-F., Vela, C., Wittkowski, R.,
  2020. Caring for soil is caring for life - Ensure 75% of soils are healthy by 2030 for food, people, nature
  and climate, Independent expert report, Eur. Comm. Publ. Office of the Eur. Union, Luxembourg,
  
  Bouma, J. J.J. de Haan and M.S.Dekkers. 2022. Exploring Operational Procedures to Assess Ecosystem Services on Farm Level, including the Role of Soil Health. Soil Systems, 6,34. (6020034)
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-AC4
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-307', Peter Finke, 25 Oct 2022

Review of Bouma, J. Transforming “Living Labs” into :”Lighthouses”: a promising policy to achieve land-related sustainable development?

This manuscript is a plea for a more operational way to forward agricultural systems so that they comply better with the sustainable development goals while stimulating profitability and creating a larger support base amongst the land users.

While this plea is valuable, I am, frankly, not certain whether this type of manuscript fits well in the scope of SOIL, to publish scientific research that contributes to understanding of the soil system and its interaction with humans and the entire Earth system. The manuscript is more a position paper than a scientific study. I leave this issue to the topical editor, and will with my remarks aim at objectification of some statements that now strike me as opinions rather than objective conclusions, and suggest some improvements or clarifications.

l.57: ref EC, 2021 is missing

l.62: meeting particular threshold value: Vague. Who would/should define the threshold values, and how?

At some places the intelligence and experiences of farmers are downplayed, I think this is not justified:

l.102: "farmers are confused and ill-informed": "Confused" is also a role that can be played for political reasons (posed Calimero complex). Farmers are usually very well informed, not in the least because they are well-organized.

l.115: "apparently": tendentious statement. Perhaps they are well-communicated and understood, but not attractive economically, so ignored?

At other places the role and outputs of scientific research are also downplayed.

l.119: "conflicting information" and l.122: "many of which ... part of SDG spectrum"

I would propose to be more specific.

In case of the conflicting information: who are the "highly vocal supporters"? Are these active scientists, emeriti happy to be on TV once again, influencers? Do these highly vocal supporters expose, construct or misuse conflicting information? All of these possibilities may be true, actually, but better to be clear on when part the conflicting info is named as part of a political game and when it is conflicting from a scientific perspective.

Regarding the coverage of the SDG-spectrum of the named farming systems: a table relating farming systems to SDG-coverage would be illustrative and would make the statement stronger.

l.144: "establishment of <...> and lighthouses provides a clear starting point": in l.62-63, a lighthouse is "matured/successful" Living lab, thus rather an endmember than a starting point.

l.160: ecosystem services at farm level in Living Labs: would this be feasible if export of harmful substances beyond the farm ("transformation of agrochemicals"), a 3D-problem, is at stake? Research is currently being done at the regional (transfarm) scale, searching for nature compensations or dampening of agricultural impacts, which sounds more feasible to me. Field boundaries may change, invalidating a farm study while the regional landscape is more stable.

l.179: "regional thresholds": perhaps consider referencing to this recent publcation by a.o.Wim de Vries: Schulte-Uebbing, L.F., Beusen, A.H.W., Bouwman, A.F. et al. From planetary to regional boundaries for agricultural nitrogen pollution. Nature 610, 507–512 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05158-2

l.186: "depends on market conditions and consumer choices": this sounds like a plea for transdisciplinary research and should not be ignored. Perhaps mention this.

l.188: "bound to be commercially more attractive": Tendentious statement; any supporting reference for this?

I like sections 3, 4 and 5. Some remarks though:

l.200: linking the definition of soil health to ecosystem services, the SDG's and the Green Deal seems to exclude soil health in, e.g., Australia (some colleagues there would not appreciate this), and also suggests a temporal perspective at the political (election) time scale. Intentional?

l.233: "ine witGthe">"line with the"

l.273-280: Are scientists and farmers the only partners to arrive at "WE"? It would seem essential to have good mediators to streamline the process. Leads to Conclusion 5, by the way.

l.296-297: satisfying threshold values: this is of more importance than it seems here. Could be a bit expanded so that the questions behind it are identified. E.g.: Who does it, who sets the ambition level? WE will agree on RIGHT easily when the ambition level is low... Should threshold values be locally decided upon, or should they be set at a general political (EC?) level, even for a region? Can treshold values be negotiated to obtain more WE? an example in l.333: 80% Yw was decided upon by who?

l.348: remove ,

l.388: No treshold cannot lead to a positive result.

txt: do a search/replace from ":(" to "("

Peter Finke

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-RC2
- AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Johan Bouma, 31 Oct 2022
  
  This comment provides highly relevant suggestions. Whether or not this paper fits in the scope of SOIL has to be judged by the editors but the criteria:”understanding the soil system and its interaction with humans” as well as :”emphasis on studies that integrate soil science with other sciences” would both seem to fit perfectly well.
  The discussion of threshold values of ecosystem service indicators has received much more emphasis in the revised paper. Dr. Finke was correct in stating that this aspect was not well articulated. Research on meaningful thresholds is needed and requires, again, research input in an inter- and transdisciplinary context.
  The attitudes of farmers has been described somewhat differently now by emphasizing only confusion and, above all, the need for clarity.Also, more emphasis is given to meeting thresholds of a series of ecosystem services. Different farming systems being promoted now can certainly be a source of inspiration but the final verdict about meeting thresholds applies to all systems ( also possibly new ones!). Again: clarity!
  It is, in my view, not possible to provide a table showing how the various farming systems can meet SDG demands. There is much variation and systematic investigation of indicators for ecosystem services ( that would be the basis for such a table) simply does not exist.
  Correct, Lighthouses don’t represent a starting point They result from successful Living Labs.
  The regional context of indicators forms a valid poit of discussion. I have added the citation of de Vries et al but also mention the :”tragedy of the Commons” dilemma. Real engagement of farmers ( and other land users) will only materialize, I feel, when they know what to aim for on their particular farm.
  It is indeed good to emphasize that the discussion focuses on environmental aspects of sustainable development, as framed by the SDGs. But next to the environment there are, of course, the important social and economic considerations. The environment is not the only game in town.
  The Australians don’t have to worry because the SDGs apply worldwide but in a journal of the European Geosciences Union , the EC with its Green Deal cannot be omitted.
  Interesting question about the “WE”. In fact, governmental policies in democratic societies reflect ( ideally) a “WE”, warts and all. I feel that success at farm level Living Lab studies would initially be well served by emphasizing the :”WE:” formed by farmers and researchers who should, of course, be aware of societal demands. Outside communication would be so much better when there are successful Lighthouse examples later on. I don’t think it would work if large groups of various people with various interests would guide Living Lab activities right from the start. I have rephfased the text and time will tell what will work best in practice.
  Indeed, when a threshold is not met , a soil cannot be healthy. But soil biologists have not come up yet with clear indicators, let alone, thresholds. They may in future but until that time proxies may be needed.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-AC5
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-307', David Rossiter, 28 Oct 2022

Summary: This paper addresses a time-critical problem: how to transform European agriculture to achieve "sustainable" development. It focuses on the proposal for "Living Labs" proposed as part of the "Soil Deal for Europe" by the EC. These farms where changes in land use practices are implemented and evaluated, and if successful becoming "Lighthouses" where other farmers and the public can see the practices and adopt or adjust them for their own needs. In addition, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with associated targets and indicators have been developed, and would seem to be a logical basis for evaluating the Living Labs. The paper points out the major problem here: no concrete suggestions on how to reach the targets, and thus no way for farmers to understand the relation to their enterprises. The paper goes on to discuss how to engage the farmers, perhaps by means of ecosystem services provided. The next section discusses research approaches to be taken by the scientific community, and recommends to tame so-called "wicked" problems by the concept of ecosystem services and defined thresholds. This by necessity requires interdisciplinary; the example is given of soil-water-atmosphere-plant simulation models. A fourth section on engaging the public discusses the "knowledge level" paradigm adopted from Hoosbeek and Bryant and the distinction between "truth", "right" and "real" as perceived by the public, as related to the Living Labs concept. A fifth section is on policy development, mainly on how the ecosystem services concept could be incorporated into policy, to make it operational. A sixth section summarizes a case study from the Netherlands (details presented elsewhere), showing defined soil health indicators, their thresholds, the results on the model farm, and their relation to ecosystem services and the SDGs. This sort of accounting is recommended to evaluate Living Labs and their potential to be Lighthouses. Finally, the author makes a set of recommendations, based on the previous sections.

Evaluation: The paper is provocative and interesting and there is much to consider for researchers and policy-makers. However, the sequence of arguments is somewhat rambling so that the main points can get lost in the detail. This reviewer had to read the paper several times to pick out the main threads of the argument that lead to the list of conclusions. For example, key points such as L181-4 and L231-234, which are main points of the paper, are somewhat buried in surrounding (interesting) detail.

Details:

1. The paper needs copyediting to remove incorrect and unnecessary punctuation and spacing, and some typos (e.g., L233).

2. At many places quotes from the SDGs are given, but nowhere a reference. https://sdgs.un.org/ is a general web page. The goals are listed at https://sdgs.un.org/goals but I could not find a publication with the wordings presented in this paper.

2. L147 the web reference is to a general page, not the document from which the quote was taken.

3. L146ff 'es' -> 'ES'. A reference is needed for the SDG definitions, see above.

4. L198-9 "So far, this fact has not widely been internalised by the various scientific disciplines." Maybe, but the statement is unsupported. As an opinion piece this could stand, but if

5. L203ff perhaps this paper is relevant: Falconi, S. M. and Palmer, R. N.: An interdisciplinary framework for participatory modeling design and evaluation. What makes models effective participatory decision tools?, Water Resour. Res., 53, 1625–1645, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019373, 2017.

6. L210-1 the frequentest approach to hypothesis testing and the rigid use of 5% (or any other) value of alpha is strongly discredited, and in any case does not lead to outright "acceptance", rather, strong evidence for or against a hypothesis. "Acceptance" just means the researcher was likely on the right track, and leads to more work. It should not be presented as the "truth". The popular press (New Scientist, Guardian) are responsible for confusiing the public on this, but even they have introduced Bayesian ideas to the public. The concept of a "tame" and limited research goal being the preferred target for many researchers is correct.

7. L307 "They can best be ignored." At least we hope they understand the logic by which the majority approved of the policy. That is also part of communication.

8. L472 incomplete reference to the Communiqué. Probably somewhere on https://gffa-berlin.de/en/.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-RC3
- AC6: 'Reply on RC3', Johan Bouma, 31 Oct 2022
  
  Comments are relevant to improve some aspects of the paper. Issues discussed are highly complex and I have tried to introduce a certain amount of systematics by writing seperate sections on farmers, researchers, the public and policies and arriving at conclusions that are specific. I hope that will do for most readers and , if not, their interest is sufficient to give it another try.
  The SDGs are quoted as indicated. The various SDGs have long descriptions in the original documents that have been shortened in a widely distributed pictogram, showing the 17 goals on one page. I have added a sentence to alert the reader to this pictogram. I followed the shortened titles.
  The statement that the need for inter- and transdisciplinarity when discussing SDGs has not yet been widely internalized is indeed an opinion. When looking at soils, meteo, hydrology and agronomy journals, though, one sees a strong and dominant disciplinary focus. I have added a sentence to express that. But.. I mention: “not widely”and not “not at all”!
  The Falconi reference is valuable. Added. Thanks.
  Those that refuse to join an emerging “WE” still need to be listened to but when a real dialogue turns out to be impossible , ignoring is the best option left it would seem, saving attention for more creative activities.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-307-AC6

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (17 Nov 2022) by Engracia Madejón Rodríguez

AR by Johan Bouma on behalf of the Authors (18 Nov 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (21 Nov 2022) by Engracia Madejón Rodríguez

ED: Publish as is (21 Nov 2022) by Engracia Madejón Rodríguez (Executive editor)

AR by Johan Bouma on behalf of the Authors (24 Nov 2022)

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

14 Dec 2022

Transforming living labs into lighthouses: a promising policy to achieve land-related sustainable development

Johan Bouma

SOIL, 8, 751–759, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-8-751-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-8-751-2022, 2022

Short summary

Johan Bouma

Viewed

Total article views: 722 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
531	163	28	722	4	4

HTML: 531
PDF: 163
XML: 28
Total: 722
BibTeX: 4
EndNote: 4

Views and downloads (calculated since 30 May 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2022	51	10	3	64
Jun 2022	46	19	1	66
Jul 2022	44	14	0	58
Aug 2022	123	29	6	158
Sep 2022	74	29	5	108
Oct 2022	118	26	8	152
Nov 2022	64	28	5	97
Dec 2022	11	8	0	19
Jan 2023	0
Feb 2023	0
Mar 2023	0
Apr 2023	0
May 2023	0
Jun 2023	0
Jul 2023	0
Aug 2023	0
Sep 2023	0
Oct 2023	0

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 30 May 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2022	51	10	3	64
Jun 2022	46	19	1	66
Jul 2022	44	14	0	58
Aug 2022	123	29	6	158
Sep 2022	74	29	5	108
Oct 2022	118	26	8	152
Nov 2022	64	28	5	97
Dec 2022	11	8	0	19
Jan 2023	0
Feb 2023	0
Mar 2023	0
Apr 2023	0
May 2023	0
Jun 2023	0
Jul 2023	0
Aug 2023	0
Sep 2023	0
Oct 2023	0

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 652 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 652 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 07 Oct 2023

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (377 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

In the new: "Soil Deal for Europe" , land users, most of them farmers, and scientists are required to work jointly in: "Living Labs" to develop sustainable land use systems. We propose in our paper that threshold values for different ecosystem services in line with the UN SDGs and the EU Green Deal, have to be met to define: "LIghthouses" that demonstrate successfull sustainable land use systems, functioning as inspiring examples. A case study illustrates the important role of soils.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0