the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 29 Sep 2025
Soil health-based business models: perspectives and policy implications
Abstract. Soil health is foundational to ecological sustainability, economic productivity, and societal wellbeing. However, fragmented perspectives on what constitutes "healthy soil" hinder coherent policies and business models. This article addresses that gap by offering a value-based framework to guide soil-health initiatives. Building on the Total Economic Value (TEV) framework, six complementary perspectives are identified: (1) productivist, (2) ecosystem services, (3) resilience, (4) non-use value, (5) intrinsic value, and (6) social innovation. These represent different motivations and beneficiaries – from private returns through public goods, to moral duties and collective empowerment. Each perspective implies specific opportunities and challenges for policy design. For instance, direct subsidies may be justified in cases where economic returns are delayed or insufficient, while ecosystem service payments require credible measurement and market mechanisms. Resilience investments often suffer from coordination failures, and intrinsic or social values lack clear economic incentives, requiring legal, educational, or institutional support instead. The article argues that no single policy instrument can serve all these perspectives effectively; rather, a differentiated, multi-perspective strategy is needed to align incentives, avoid over-subsidization, and ensure equitable access and accountability. This framework provides a foundation for designing inclusive and adaptive policies that foster sustainable soil stewardship across diverse stakeholders.
- Preprint
(423 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4072', R. Murray Lark, 23 Dec 2025
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Kato Van Ruymbeke, 10 Jun 2026
We thank the reviewer for his thorough and constructive feedback. Below we address each comment and provide a suggested approach for how we plan to tackle this in the (upcoming) revised manuscript.
Comment 1: The framework disguises neoliberal assumptions about 'value' and how it is to be assessed. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the TEV framework, which underpins our analysis, is based in neoclassical environmental economics and thus includes the commensurability of qualitatively different values and the use of market-compatible metrics as proxies for soil value. In the revised manuscript, we propose to add an explicit methodological statement acknowledging this theoretical background and defending our use of TEV on policy grounds – TEV is currently the dominant language of environmental finance, land stewardship policy, and green investment instruments, and operationalizing soil value within this language is a practical precondition for influencing those types of instruments. We do not claim that TEV is a neutral or exhaustive framework, and explicitly acknowledge its limitations.
Comment 2: Whether different values can be aggregated into an overall 'output value' is questionable but taken for granted by the authors. Response: We acknowledge this concern and propose to add a clarification in the relevant section noting that aggregation of qualitatively different soil values into a single monetary metric is a contested move within the broader value literature. We argue that the TEV does not require full aggregation into a single figure. Rather, it provides a structured vocabulary for identifying and comparing distinct value dimensions, which can inform policy design without necessarily being collapsed into one number. The reframing in the revised manuscript will make this clearer.
Comment 3: 'Insurance value' is not defined and the verb 'reflect' is too vague.
Response: In the revised manuscript we propose to provide a more precise definition of insurance value, situating it explicitly within the TEV framework. Insurance value is defined as the value derived from maintaining soil's capacity to continue delivering ecosystem services under conditions of uncertainty and change – somewhat analogous to the option and bequest value recognized within TEV's non-use category, but specifically capturing the buffering capacity of soil against future shocks. The vague phrasing around 'reflect' will be replaced with language that makes the relationship between soil condition and insurance value explicit and consistent with TEV terminology.Comment 4: The use of 'use value' and 'non-use value' conflicts with their meaning in political economy and is confusing. Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important terminological issue. The terms 'use value' and 'non-use value' as used in our manuscript derive from the TEV framework in neoclassical environmental economics, where they carry specific meanings that differ substantially from their use in classical political economy. In TEV, 'use value' refers to any benefit derived from direct or indirect use, including consumptive, non-consumptive, and option uses, and is ultimately grounded in willingness-to-pay. We agree with the reviewer that this distinction needs to be made more explicit. We propose to add a terminological clarification in the revised manuscript that explicitly flags this difference, making clear that our use of these terms follows the TEV convention and should not be read through a political economy lens.
Comment 5: The resilience perspective should not sit alongside the productivist and ecosystem service perspectives as a separate category, as it mainly refers to future values of those same perspectives. Response: We propose to add a clarifying sentence in the resilience perspective section acknowledging that it primarily captures a temporal dimension, specifically the future productivist and ecosystem service values of soil, rather than a qualitatively distinct category. We choose to retain it as a separate perspective in the framework, however, as this separation highlights the time dimension as a distinct policy consideration, particularly with respect to discounting and long-term stewardship incentives, which would be less visible if resilience were incorporated into the other two perspectives.
Comment 6: The distinction between 'non-use' perspective and 'intrinsic value' is unclear, and the term 'warm-glow' carries a dismissive connotation. Response: We suggest that both points raised in this comment are resolved by the explicit methodological position within the TEV and neoclassical environmental economics tradition added in response to comments 1 and 4. Within TEV, non-use value and intrinsic value are distinct and well-defined concepts: non-use value captures anthropocentric preferences for the existence or preservation of something independent of personal use, while intrinsic value refers to value inherent in the soil independent of any human valuation, a philosophical distinction that sits at the boundary of what the TEV can accommodate. Similarly, 'warm-glow' is an established technical term in environmental and behavioural economics, originating with Andreoni (1989), referring to the private utility derived from contributing to a public good independent of its outcome. It carries no dismissive connotation within the school of thought the manuscript is positioned in.
Comment 7: The social perspective needs to foreground that soil values depend on human labour and must acknowledge power relations, colonial dispossession, and the rifting of the metabolic relation between humans and nature. Response: We agree that the social perspective as presented is underdeveloped and thank the reviewer for the specific suggestions. In the revised manuscript we propose to strengthen this section by acknowledging that soil values are not simply a natural given but are shaped by the interaction of human labour, management history, and inherent soil properties, thereby tying in elements of the political economy literature. We plan to frame this as a boundary condition of our framework – the TEV can capture what markets can price, but the social justice and governance dimensions of soil stewardship require complementary analytical frameworks, which we identify with the soil security framework.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4072-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Kato Van Ruymbeke, 10 Jun 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4072', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 May 2026
Paper by Mathijs and Van Ruymbeke
The paper presents a holistic framework for understanding “soil health”-based business models (SHBMs) to address the fragmented perspectives on what constitutes healthy soil and how to incentivize its management. Building on the Total Economic Value (TEV) framework, the authors identify six distinct value perspectives: productivist, ecosystem service, resilience, non-use value, intrinsic value, and social innovation. Each perspective highlights different motivations and beneficiaries, ranging from private economic returns for land managers to collective societal empowerment and the inherent moral value of nature. The authors argue that no single policy instrument can effectively address all these perspectives. Instead, they recommend a differentiated, multi-perspective policy strategy that combines direct subsidies, ecosystem service payments, risk coordination mechanisms, and institutional support to align incentives, avoid over-subsidisation, and foster sustainable soil stewardship and governance.
Clarifying Soil Health vs. Soil Condition
To strengthen the theoretical foundation of the paper, the authors need to confront the inherent vagueness of the term "soil health". As currently framed, the paper relies on a concept that lacks a globally agreed definition and is often inconsistently and variously measured and/ or weakly connected to spatial planning and policy [1]. Drawing on recent advances in the soil security framework, the authors could clarify that "soil health" is most easily and rigorously conceived as homologous to the "condition" dimension of soil security [2] [3]. As Evangelista et al. (2024) and McBratney et al. (2026) articulate, while soil health provides valuable insights on soil condition at the scale of farmer’s fields, it is challenged to address national-scale challenges related to spatial variability, cumulative risk, and economic valuation [1] [3]. By explicitly adopting the "soil condition/health" phraseology, the authors can perhaps anchor their business models in a more robust, multidimensional framework that extends beyond biophysical metrics to integrate socio-economic value and governance. This broader perspective would allow the paper to better articulate how local improvements in soil condition/health cascade into regional and national resilience.
Reframing the Contribution to the Capital Dimension
Perhaps the greatest contribution this paper makes is not actually to the somewhat vague concept of "soil health," but rather in providing a better insight into how the "capital" dimension of soil security could be assessed. The paper’s adaptation of the TEV framework essentially unpacks the capital dimension—which Evangelista et al. (2024) describe as one of the less ambiguous but under-quantified aspects of soil security [3]. The current discussion of SHBMs focuses primarily on flows of income and services, while the capital dimension is underpinned by the notion of placing a monetary value on soil as an asset or stock [4]. As such the present paper potentially extends the Soil Capital Dimension concept and suggests a wider SSBM (Soil Security Business Model). To elaborate further, as established in the Soil Security Assessment Framework by Evangelista et al. (2023), evaluating soil security requires integrating soil functions, services, and threats [5]. By reframing their six value perspectives as mechanisms to assess and operationalise this capital dimension, the authors would provide a crucial bridge between abstract economic theory and practical soil science and soil policy. This reframing could demonstrate how soil functions, services, and threats can be translated into economic terms to support investment cases and incentives [1]. Such an approach would allow policymakers and financial institutions to design instruments that treat soil as an appreciating or depreciating natural asset rather than merely a factor of production, fundamentally shifting how agricultural and nature positive financing is structured.
Quantifying and Spatializing Soil Capital
Finally, the paper could be improved by incorporating practical methodologies for measuring and spatialising these value perspectives, moving the framework from a conceptual exercise to an actionable policy tool. The authors could draw inspiration from recent spatial assessments of soil capital, such as the work by Francos et al. (2024), who quantified "soil management capital" by integrating soil functions, services, and threats into a unified economic metric [6]. In their Australian case study, Francos et al. utilised digital soil mapping to calculate capital in US$/ha units on a pixel-by-pixel basis, factoring in pH regulation costs, nutrient stocks, and available water holding capacity (AWC) [6]. Furthermore, the paper could greatly benefit from incorporating the concepts of genosoils (the least modified reference state of a soil) and phenosoils (the variant resulting from land use and management) [7]. Comparing phenosoils to their reference genosoils provides a direct, measurable insight into soil degradation and, consequently, the loss or gain of capital value (including TEV) over time [8]. Suggesting that SHBMs/SSBMs be supported by such spatially explicit, comparative utilities based on role-specific (functions, threats, services) indicators would provide concrete tools for policymakers to identify biophysical feasibility, target remediation where trajectories are deteriorating, and design instruments - such as soil-backed green bonds - that reward land managers for building and maintaining the inherent capital value of their soil stocks.
References
[1]: https://doi.org/10.3390/earth7020062 "McBratney, A., Evangelista, S., Francos, N., et al. (2026). Beyond Soil Health: Soil Security Underpinning a National Framework for Sustainable Australian Agriculture. Earth, 7, 62."
[2]: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.08.013 "McBratney, A., et al. (2014 ). The dimensions of soil security. Geoderma, 213, 203-213."
[3]: https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2023.10.001 "Evangelista, S. J., Field, D. J., McBratney, A. B., et al. (2024 ). Soil security—Strategizing a sustainable future for soil. Advances in Agronomy, 183, 1-70."
[4]: https://www.soils.org/files/am/pdfs/soil-security-dimensions-brief.pdf "Soil Science Society of America. (n.d. ). Soil Security Dimensions Brief."
[5]: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soisec.2023.100086 "Evangelista, S. J., et al. (2023 ). A proposal for the assessment of soil security: Soil functions, soil services and threats to soil. Soil Security, 10, 100086."
[6]: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soisec.2024.100141 "Francos, N., et al. (2024 ). Valuing and integrating soil roles in assessing the capital dimension of soil security: An Australian case study. Soil Security, 16, 100141."
[7]: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soisec.2023.100108 "Román Dobarco, M., et al. (2023 ). Genosoil and phenosoil mapping in continental Australia is essential for soil security. Soil Security, 13, 100108."
[8]: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soisec.2024.100157 "Francos, N., et al. (2024 ). Mapping available water capacity as a soil production capital metric in Australia. Soil Security, 16, 100157."
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4072-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Kato Van Ruymbeke, 10 Jun 2026
We thank the reviewer for their thorough and constructive review. Below we provide a response for each comment indicating how we plan to tackle this in the revised manuscript, which is forthcoming.
Comment 1: The paper relies on a concept of ‘soil health’ that lacks a globally agreed definition and is inconsistently measured. Response: We agree that ‘soil health’ as a standalone concept is perhaps underspecified for the purposes of policy-oriented valuation framework, and that anchoring the manuscript’s terminology in the soil security framework provides a greater rigor. In the revised manuscript we propose to explicitly align our framework with the condition dimension of the soil security framework.
Comment 2: The paper’s greatest contribution is not to soil health per se but to providing better insight into how the ‘capital’ dimension of soil security could be assessed. Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for this reframing, which we believe sharpens the paper’s contribution considerably. In the revised manuscript we propose to add a description positioning our six value perspectives as a mechanism for assessing the capital dimension of soil security. We have chosen to retain the Soil Health Business Model framing, as this reflects the manuscript’s primary focus on field-scale management incentives and its intended audience of practitioners and policymakers. However, we plan to explicitly acknowledge the connection to the broader soil security capital dimension and position our framework as a contribution to that literature, demonstrating how TEV-based value perspectives can provide economic content that the capital dimension requires.
Comment 3: The manuscript should incorporate practical methodologies for measuring and spatializing the value perspectives. Response: We thank the reviewer for these suggestions. Within the word count constraints of the journal and this type of text, we propose to incorporate references in the revised manuscript to Francos et al. (2024) and the genosoil/phenosoil framework as illustrative examples of how the value perspectives developed in our framework can be grounded in measurable, spatially explicit indicators. We also acknowledge, however, that full integration of spatial capital assessment methods goes beyond the scope of the present paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4072-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Kato Van Ruymbeke, 10 Jun 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,055 | 655 | 185 | 2,895 | 191 | 166 |
- HTML: 2,055
- PDF: 655
- XML: 185
- Total: 2,895
- BibTeX: 191
- EndNote: 166
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
I agree with the authors about the importance of considering the multifaceted nature of soil functions and the benefits which these generate. However, I do not find the framework proposed very enlightening, and it seems to me to disguise various neoliberal assumptions about `value’ and how this is to be assessed.
`Value’ is a tricky concept, and one which has been the focus of considerable debate in political economy as a whole, and the economics of land in particular. Ricardo’s theory of rents assumed that different soils had different productive capacities which were in some sense static `natural’ characteristics, but Marx (e.g. in Grundrisse), drawing on the work of von Liebig and the Scottish agricultural writer John Anderson (1784) pointed out that the productive capacity of soil is created by the interaction of labour and inherent characteristics of the land. I suggest that this insight undermines, for example, the partition of “productivist” accounts and “Ecosystem services” accounts of soil into distinct phenomena. Key ecosystem services provided by soil may depend on management of the soil within production systems. Furthermore, these activities produce `value’, but whether these different values can be aggregated into some overall `output value’ (line 39) seems to me to be very questionable, but is taken for granted by the authors. How does one `aggregate’ the value of nutrient cycling functions, modulation of water flows, carbon sequestration and maintenance of biodiversity into one measure of value?
If we grant that some formula is possible, the next `value’ which we encounter is called `insurance value’. This is not defined (line 40), it is said to `reflect’ capacity of soil to sustain ecosystem services. `Reflect’ is a very vague verb here, does it mean `corresponds to some aggregated (and possibly discounted) future `value’ of the ecosystem services, or does it mean `… is related to these future services in some hand-waving sense..’? We are not really enlightened by this.
At line 42 we are told that the `benefits’ of healthy soil (are these `values produced by..’ ?) can be divided into `benefits to humans and benefits to nature’. We are told that the former comprise `use and non-use values.’ (line 43). This is confusing because, in political economy, use value means the features of some commodity which satisfy some human requirement so it is contradictory to say that a benefit of healthy soils to humans can be a non-use value. In fact we have a new definition of use-value (line 43) as what seems to be some version of exchange value, which classical political economy contrasts with use value. This redefinition of terms with established applications is not helpful to the reader. It is confusing again then to be told that this new `use value’ can be divided into option value (future use) and something called `actual value’ (line 44) which seems to comprise the exchange value of commodities produced on the soil, other benefits (clearly important, but not with any obvious exchange value) and ecosystem services (`indirect use’). We then are told that healthy soil has `non-use value’ (line 47) which, confusingly, seems to depend at least in part on possible future use (line 48/49).
We return to `insurance value’ at line 50, but this does not help us to understand the introduction of the term at line 40 (this really cannot be called a definition). At this point a social dimension of soil value is introduced, but this seems to relate only in some undefined way to the distribution of benefits.
The authors recognize correctly that any assessment of `value’ produced by and inherent in soil must deal with multiple different and potentially conflicting ways in which soil functions and human labour can interact. This is complicated further by the element of time, soil can change over time and an assessment of `value’ must account for value of future soil functions an present ones. However, this framework with its proliferation of partly overlapping and partly contradictory terms does not really take us any further.
I think that the general set of `perspectives’ set out in table 1, with a bit of tweaking, can be useful. I think that its main drawbacks are as follows
My final observation is that this paper seems to take for granted a neo-liberal perspective on soil and broader ecosystem value. This is implicit in attempts, for example, to trade off one kind of value against another through a pricing mechanism (e.g. carbon credits) which, either openly or in disguise, transforms soil values into exchange values. This assumption has already had severe impacts on social use of soil in places such as sub-Saharan Africa where large swathes of land have been appropriated into carbon trading schemes which have proved deficient both technically and in terms of value delivered to local communities (e.g. Dzingirai, V., and Mangwanya, L. Struggles over carbon in the Zambezi Valley: the case of Kariba REDD in Hurungwe, Zimbabwe. In: Carbon conflicts and forest landscapes in Africa (2015), M. Leach and I. Scoones, Eds., Routledge.
Murray Lark, Nottingham.