et al., 2011; Robinson et al., 2012a,b, 2013a,b; Dominati E. J. et al., 2014; Hewitt et al., 2015).

In terms of raising the profile of soils in economic and financial markets, it is not entirely clear how this switch from services to the natural capital itself is going to resolve issues, since it does not overcome some of the problems mentioned earlier, in particular in terms of discounting the future. Also, almost 20 years ago already, Daily et al. (1997) cautioned that “the total value of soil is calculable, as it includes the value of human society and of millions of other species.” Neoclassical economics is not particularly equipped to deal with infinite capital.

Yet, in another way, this focus on natural capital, and the recognition that in the case of soils, this capital is unfathomably large, may be very helpful. Indeed, this may encourage soils to be managed in the same way that has traditionally been adopted to deal with objects whose value is equally infinite. All around us, monuments are considered to be priceless treasures of humanity, and as a result escape entirely from the grasp of economic or financial markets. The Taj Mahal or the pyramids in Egypt are not, and will never be, for sale to the highest bidder. Governments at all levels have found non-economic ways to manage such “cultural capital.” One example, among many others, is the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, acknowledged for over eight centuries as one of the most beautiful gothic cathedrals in the world. The cathedral provides a number of services, including organ music concerts and religious celebrations, to Parisians and to countless tourists visiting it every year (for free), but preservation of the building has never been tied to any monetary valuation of these services. The perspective of the French government, shared by pretty much all governments in the same situation, is that it is responsible for keeping the cathedral in good shape, so that future generations can enjoy it as much as the current one does. In other words, the cathedral is managed as a “national heritage,” a “patrimony” (or “matrimony”), to be handed down to future citizens of France.

There are clearly many aspects that distinguish soils from a historical monument, and one should not push the analogy too far. Yet, the idea that soils, globally, should be dealt with as a patrimony or societal “heritage” (Keller et al., 2012; Perrings, 2014) is appealing at several different levels. A key one, of course, is that, unlike with CBA, this perspective mandates that soils be managed sustainably. Another advantage is that, as with buildings that are on the list of national monuments in countries like France or Italy, the label of societal heritage associated with soils would give public authorities some measure of control over what private landowners do with their land. The laws in this context vary from one country to another (Bergel, 2005). Nevertheless, under current laws in many countries, landowners have the right to do as they please with the soil they own (provided they respect local zoning guidelines and the government does not need the land for specific uses). Landowners can compact, degrade, or mine their soil of all nutrients in complete impunity, regardless of the potential of soils to fulfill specific functions/services. A switch to heritage status, as for example with the recent “Pachamama” laws enacted in Bolivia and Ecuador and giving legal rights to Mother Earth, would enable governments to either take legal action when soils

are not managed sustainably, or to have a say, democratically, in any major proposed change in land use.

A concept that is closely related to that of heritage or matrimony, is that of stewardship (McCallister and Nowak, 1998; Wander and Drinkwater, 2000; Raymond et al., 2013; Keith et al., 2016). Once soils are viewed as a heritage, the role of land managers becomes that of “stewards,” whose moral duty or responsibility, to use Jonas’s (1984) terminology, is to ensure that soils are transmitted to the next generations in good condition.

## MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS AND SOIL SERVICES

Regardless of whether one focuses on soil functions/services or on the heritage aspect of soil resources, decisions have to be made about the most appropriate management to be adopted. Among the non-monetary (or, at least, not exclusively monetary) approaches that are available to facilitate this process, a class of methods is experiencing a resurgence of interest in the context of soil uses. MCDA emerged as a decision-making methodology over four decades ago in the fields of operations research and mathematics. When CBA fell temporarily out of favor after the 70s as a methodology to deal with environmental issues, MCDA began to attract attention as a very attractive alternative in that context as well (Gatto and De Leo, 2000). The pendulum swung back to CBA for a while after 1997, but since none of the earlier criticisms of CBA were addressed or resolved, some of the focus has returned eventually to MCDA in the last few years. At this point, the literature dealing with the use of MCDA in environmental management is expanding rapidly (Linkov et al., 2006; Munda, 2008; Huang et al., 2011; Schwenk et al., 2012; Davies et al., 2013; Knights et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2013).

The basic idea of MCDA is to “evaluate the performance of alternative courses of action (e.g., management or policy options) with respect to criteria that capture the key dimensions of the decision-making problem (e.g., ecological, economic, and social sustainability), involving human judgment and preferences” (Saarikoski et al., 2015). The different steps in a typical MCDA consist typically of the definition of goals and objectives, identification of a set of decision options, selection of criteria for assessing performance relative to objectives, determination of weights for the various criteria, and application of procedures and mathematical algorithms for ranking options. A slightly more complete list of steps, in a participative context, is presented in **Figure 3**, along with different challenges that may or may not materialize at each of the steps.

Performance data accommodate a plurality of dimensions of values involved in environmental decision-making. These data may be in the form of objective metrics such as physical quantities, observed measures such as market prices, or, finally, of informed opinion of experts or stakeholders. Criteria are scored on interval or ratio scales, and are then normalized to ensure commensurability, before algorithms based on value- or utility functions, goal programming, outranking, or descriptive/multivariate statistical methods are applied to rank the options (Chee, 2004). A key feature of MCDA with respect to
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 13** | Schematic outline of the seven main stages of participatory multicriteria decision analysis. Key conflict challenges (numbers 1–7 at the center of the chart) can be addressed at multiple stages, and many of these conflicts are dealt with throughout the process, notably issues of scale, and the need for legislative flexibility (Modified from Davies et al., 2013).</figcaption></figure>

these criteria and ranking processes is the complete transparency with which they are handled, including some that otherwise would likely remain ignored or at least unmentioned (Rosen et al., 2015). Each of the steps in **Figure 13** is carried out in the open, with all of the participants being fully aware of each others' criteria and of the assumptions that are made collectively, all of which can be revisited at later stages of the discussions, if necessary.

In some cases, trade-offs between different criteria can be implemented, where a poor performance on one criterion may be compensated by a good performance on another. However, non-compensatory methods exist to deal with cases when trade-offs between different criteria should not be allowed on ethical grounds, for example, or are refused by some participants for spiritual reasons (Chan et al., 2012b). Outranking methods, like NAIADE (Munda, 2008) allow adjustments for the level of compensability of certain criteria. For example, a threshold could be set to guarantee that aquifer recharge at a particular

location remains above an agreed-upon minimum, which is then subsequently excluded from trade-off with other soil functions/services.

Traditional MCDA methods used to assume that there was a single decision-maker, confronted with a number of clear, unambiguous, non-conflicting objectives. In addition, criteria were assumed to be well-defined, independent of each other, and measurable with certainty. In the last 2 decades, however, MCDA methods have been developed that alleviate some of these restrictions, and in particular can handle group decision and deliberative situations where there might be conflicting objectives (Chee, 2004). Similarly, MCDA methods have been combined with BBNs (e.g., Fenton and Neil, 2001) or fuzzy sets concepts (Bojorquez-Tapia et al., 2013) in order to take into account the uncertainty unavoidably associated with the criteria used.

In the last few years, MCDA methods have been increasingly applied to a wide range of situations directly or indirectly
involving soil functions/services. Researchers have used MCDA, e.g., to choose among alternative land uses (Fontana et al., 2013; Restrepo Estrada and Alvia Ramirez, 2013; Borgogno-Mondino et al., 2015), to select among a number of flood protection options in watersheds (Porthin et al., 2013), to locate sites suitable for new landfills (Sener et al., 2006; El Baba et al., 2015), to establish sustainable industrial areas (Ruiz et al., 2012), to develop tourism, including ecotourism (Erfani et al., 2015), to assess the sustainability of alternative cropping systems (Sadok et al., 2008, 2009), to optimize the reclamation and redevelopment of brownfields and open pit mines (Bascetin, 2007; Morio et al., 2013), or to assess and map land degradation (Bojorquez-Tapia et al., 2013).

Among this expanding literature, several articles have demonstrated in great detail how MCDA allows soil functions/services to be taken into account explicitly in decision-making. In particular, Volchko et al. (2013, 2014) have shown how soil functions, as defined in the context of the EU Soil Directive, could be used as key criteria, along with various socio-economic considerations, when trying to reach a decision about the best reclamation option for contaminated brownfields. The Excel-based computer program SCORE used in the research has since been developed further and is made available (Rosen et al., 2015; Söderqvist et al., 2015).

Another example of the application of MCDA to a situation involving soil functions is the participatory effort of Rodenburg et al. (2014) to develop a methodology to take advantage of the regional agricultural potential of inland valleys in sub-Saharan Africa. Specifically, the goal is to benefit local rural livelihoods and meet regional objectives of reducing poverty and increasing food safety, while simultaneously safeguarding other inland-valley ecosystem services of local and regional importance, like biodiversity conservation, water storage, local flood and erosion control, nutrient retention, and stabilization of the micro-climate. Yet another example is the work of Teshome et al. (2014), where MCDA is used to evaluate different SWC practices used by farmers in the north-western Ethiopian highlands. Whereas, international and aid agencies tend to evaluate the benefits of SWC measures solely in financial terms (i.e., following CBA), the detailed analysis of Teshome et al. (2014), based on surveys and group discussions with local farmers, suggests that these farmers employ a wider set of criteria, including non-monetary ones and some of the least quantifiable (social and ecological) impacts of SWC practices, in their decision to adopt or not various SWC measures.

It is clear from this quick overview of the fast-growing body of literature on the use of MCDA methods to deal with soil issues, that MCDA seems to fulfill a clear need among practitioners. Their features that are most often put forth as key advantages of MCDA are that it allows the active participation of stakeholders in decision-making, makes it possible to take technical information about soil functions/services explicitly into account, can use cost-benefit types of arguments if/when suitable, but otherwise is flexible enough not to require all criteria to be expressed in monetary terms.

## TAKE-HOME MESSAGES

This article started with a mention of the extreme enthusiasm, and very high level of research activity, centered at the moment on the “ecosystem” services of soils. The flurry of articles that have been published on this topic in the last few years, and continue to come out at a frantic pace, might suggest at a casual glance that the idea of considering and especially valuing soil services emerged only recently, as a result of a broader interest in ecosystem services that started in 1997. However, such a perspective would be misleading. The review of the literature presented above demonstrates that this is not the case at all. Soil functions and services have been the object of significant interest and in-depth reflection for the last five decades, before ecosystem services ever became fashionable. Valuation of soil services also started quite a few years ago, in the mid-80s, using methods that were developed in the 40s and 50s to associate monetary values with parks or wetlands.

Given this half-century of awareness of the multifunctionality of soils, and the even longer existence of methods to associate monetary values with services rendered by nature, it is very revealing that very little progress has been made, on a number of fronts. In particular, Eigenbrod et al. (2010) remarked that “Perhaps the greatest obstacle to substantial progress in assessing ecosystem services is a lack of data—there is simply none available for most services in most of the world.” Indeed, over the last 50 years that researchers have been discussing about the various functions of soils, precious little progress has been achieved in this area. To date, there are no direct quantitative measurements of the functions/services of soils. The very few estimates that are available in this respect result from numerous simplifying assumptions and approximations, whose soundness is difficult to assess in the absence of actual measurements, and without a detailed uncertainty analysis. Among these estimates, those based on soil service “indicators” seem particularly uncertain at this stage. In order for the use of soil functions/services in decision making to progress beyond mere rhetoric, this issue of quantitative measurements will need to be addressed.

Similarly, very few researchers have attempted so far to put any kind of price tag on non-marketed soil functions or services. The manifest reluctance of the soil science community to do so could be due to a number of different reasons (Baveye, 2015), among which are conceptual shortcomings with all the methods available in principle to evaluate soil services monetarily, the fact that soil functions or services are interdependent and (for some, at least) still poorly understood, or the current impossibility to assign prices meaningfully to a whole range of cultural, spiritual, or emotional services of soils. In addition, an analysis of cost-benefit analysis, a pillar of neoclassical economics, which would control what is done with soils services if they were assigned prices, suggests that the management of soils that would ensue from CBA may not be in the best interest of human populations at large, not to mention that it could lead to disaster for soils themselves. In addition, the idea that economic thinking, and
the dynamics of financial markets, automatically results in an optimal and efficient allocation of natural resources, does not hold very long to scrutiny, in view of the very shaky foundations of the now-dominant neoclassical theory.

At this juncture, it seems logical to state, as Kelman (1981) did already many years ago, that “There are good reasons to oppose efforts to put dollar values on non-marketed benefits and costs.” Some soil scientists, however, feel uncomfortable with this viewpoint, and consider that since governmental and international agencies are asking us to provide them with prices for the different functions and services of soils, we have no real choice and it is our responsibility to deliver the requested numbers, regardless of what we may think. In the eighteenth century, Rousseau (1754) alluded to a similar dilemma, in the closely related context of private property: “The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said “This is mine,” and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the soil belong to us all, and the soil itself to nobody.”

In this day and age, we may find that, except in some parts of the world where communal lands still subsist, the battleground now is no longer about the concept of property rights. Even though some may still view it as “perhaps the weirdest of all the undertakings of our ancestors” (Polanyi, 1944), property rights no longer are an object of discussion. However, who will own, and benefit financially, from the many services soils provide to human populations may very well be where some of the next battles are waged.

In this case as well, as in Rousseau’s time, the responsible thing to do for scientists may be to cry to our fellows: “Beware of listening to the impostors who try to sell you their cost-benefit approach and have little understanding of soils.” Until now, no one has made that call explicitly, but instead, soil scientists have clearly voted with their feet. Rather than investing time and effort into monetizing soil functions or services, they have actively explored alternative, non-monetary approaches. A significant body of work has been devoted in the past decade to what Chee (2004) called for: “more comprehensive approaches for facilitating genuine, substantive stakeholder participation with opportunities for social learning, value formation, problem exploration, risk assessment, analysis of uncertainty, broad-based

debate, and reconciliation of interests.” Research carried out to date demonstrates that approaches based, e.g., on MCDA or BBNs, afford many advantages over strictly Cost-Benefit Analysis, and are very effective at leading to decisions that are optimal for society as a whole.

Regardless of the approach that decision makers end up adopting to deal with the allocation of soil resources among competing demands, it seems clear that an important component of their action will have to be devoted to educating members of the public about the huge significance of soils in their lives. Only an educated citizenry, keenly aware of the complex array of functions, and services that soils fulfill, will be able to make appropriate decisions collaboratively, or to support them through democratic channels. We are arguably very far from that now. Ehrenfeld (1988) points out that the reason we need to write articles about the value that nature has for human societies shows the extent to which nature is in trouble. A century ago, “that value would have been taken for granted.” In this respect, the concept of soil function/service can serve a very useful purpose, in that it can constitute an easy and attractive entry point for didactic programs aimed at explaining how soils are structured, how we think they work, and how much uncertainty remains in our understanding of both properties and processes. Perhaps if these messages got across to a broader portion of the population, soils would be less threatened than they are now, and we would not have to constantly advocate their value.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

This article resulted from frequent discussions among the three authors over several years. PB did most of the writing. JB and JG made editorial comments on the whole text, and contributed particularly to the sections dealing with the economic aspects of ecosystem services.

## FUNDING

The writing of this article was supported financially by the Kodak Endowment, made available to one of us (PB) at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and through a grant of the Métaprogramme ECOSERV of the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA, France, grant 2015 PERSES_P10652), which allowed the organization of a research workshop on the ecosystem services of soils near Paris, in December 2015, at which many of the topics addressed in this article were discussed in depth.

## REFERENCES

* Adamowicz, W. L. (1991). Valuation of environmental amenities. *Can. J. Agric. Econ.* 39, 609–618. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.1991.tb03612.x

* Adhikari, B., and Nadella, K. (2011). Ecological economics of soil erosion: a review of the current state of knowledge. *Ecol. Econ. Rev.* 1219, 134–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05910.x

* Aitkenhead, M. J., Albanito, F., Jones, M. B., and Black, H. I. J. (2011). Development and testing of a process-based model (MOSES) for simulating soil processes, functions and ecosystem services. *Ecol. Model.* 222, 3795–3810. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.09.014

* Almansa, C., Calatrava, J., and Martinez-Paz, J. M. (2012). Extending the framework of the economic evaluation of erosion control actions in Mediterranean basins. *Land Use Policy* 29, 294–308. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.06.013
Anderson, E. (1993). *Value in Ethics and Economics*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Anderson, M., Teisl, M., Noblet, C., and Klein, S. (2015). The incompatibility of benefit-cost analysis with sustainability science. *Sustain. Sci.* 10, 33–41. doi: 10.1007/s11625-014-0266-4

Andersson, E., McPhearson, T., Kremer, P., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Haase, D., Tuvendal, M., et al. (2015). Scale and context dependence of ecosystem service providing units. *Ecosys. Serv.* 12, 157–164. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.001

Andrén, O., and Balandreau, J. (1999). Biodiversity and soil functioning - from black box to can of worms? *Appl. Soil Ecol.* 13, 105–108.

Andrew, M. E., Wulder, M. A., Nelson, T. A., and Coops, N. C. (2015). Spatial data, analysis approaches, and information needs for spatial ecosystem service assessments: a review. *GiScience Remote Sens.* 52, 344–373. doi: 10.1080/15481603.2015.1033809

Ango, T. G., Borjeson, L., Senbeta, F., and Hylander, K. (2014). Balancing ecosystem services and disservices: smallholder farmers' use and management of forest and trees in an agricultural landscape in Southwestern Ethiopia. *Ecol. Soc.* 19:30. doi: 10.5751/ES-06279-190130

Arrow, K. J. (1950). A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. *J. Polit. Econ.* 58, 328–346. doi: 10.1086/256963

Atkinson, G., Bateman, I., and Mourato, S. (2012). Recent advances in the valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity. *Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy* 28, 22–47. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grs007

Atfield, R. (1998). Existence value and intrinsic value. *Ecol. Econ.* 24, 163–168. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00140-7

Ausseil, A. G. E., Dymond, J. R., Kirschbaum, M. U. F., and Andrew, R. M., and Parfitt, R. L. (2013). Assessment of multiple ecosystem services in New Zealand at the catchment scale. *Environ. Model. Softw.* 43, 37–48. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.01.006

Baker, J. M., Ochsner, T. E., Venterea, R. T., and Griffis, T. J. (2007). Tillage and soil carbon sequestration - What do we really know? *Agric. Ecosys. Environ.* 118, 1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.014

Balana, B. B., Muys, B., Haregeweyn, N., Descheemaeker, K., Deckers, J., Poesen, J., et al. (2012). Cost-benefit analysis of soil and water conservation measure: the case of exclosures in northern Ethiopia. *For. Policy Econ.* 15, 27–36. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.09.008

Banwart, S. (2011). Save our soils. *Nature* 474, 151–152. doi: 10.1038/474151a

Barancikova, G., and Madaras, M. (2003). Attempt to assessment of non-production soil functions - Filtration of organic contaminants. *Ekologia Bratislava* 22, 323–336.

Barbier, E. B. (1994). Valuing environmental functions: tropical wetlands. *Land Econ.* 70, 155–173. doi: 10.2307/3146319

Barbier, E. B. (2003). Habitat-fishery linkages and mangrove loss in Thailand. *Contemp. Econ. Policy* 21, 59–77. doi: 10.1093/cep/21.1.59

Bardgett, R. D., and van der Putten, W. H. (2014). Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. *Nature* 515, 505–511. doi: 10.1038/nature13855

Barnaud, C., and Antona, M. (2014). Deconstructing ecosystem services: uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed concept. *Geoforum* 56, 113–123. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.07.003

Barnaud, C., Antona, M., and Marzin, J. (2011). Vers une mise en débat des incertitudes associées à la notion de service écosystémique. *Vertigo* 11. doi: 10.4000/vertigo.10905. Available online at: http://vertigo.revues.org/10905

Barrett, J. E., Virginia, R. A., Wall, D. H., and Adams, B. J. (2008). Decline in a dominant invertebrate species contributes to altered carbon cycling in a low-diversity soil ecosystem. *Glob. Chang. Biol.* 14, 1734–1744. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01611.x

Barrios, E. (2007). Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. *Ecol. Econ.* 64, 269–285. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.004

Bascetin, A. (2007). A decision support system using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for the optimal environmental reclamation of an open-pit mine. *Environ. Geol.* 52, 663–672. doi: 10.1007/s00254-006-0495-7

Bastian, C. T., McLeod, D. M., Germino, M. J., Reiners, W. A., and Blasko, B. J. (2002). Environmental amenities and agricultural land values: a hedonic model using geographic information systems data. *Ecol. Econ.* 40, 337–349. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00278-6

Bastian, O., Syrbe, R. U., Rosenberg, M., Rahe, D., and Grunewald, K. (2013). The five pillar EPPS framework for quantifying, mapping and managing ecosystem services. *Ecosys. Serv.* 4, 15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.003

Basu, N. B., Rao, P. S. C., Winzeler, H. E., Kumar, S., Owens, P., and Merwade, V. (2010). Parsimonious modeling of hydrologic responses in engineered watersheds: structural heterogeneity versus functional homogeneity. *Water Resour. Res.* 46:W04501. doi: 10.1029/2009WR007803

Bateman, I. J., Harwood, A. R., Mace, G. M., Watson, R. T., Abson, D. J., Andrews, B., et al. (2013). Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. *Science* 341, 45–50. doi: 10.1126/science.1234379

Bateman, I. J., and Mawby, J. (2004). First impressions count: interviewer appearance and information effects in stated preference studies. *Ecol. Econ.* 49, 47–55. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.12.006

Baveye, P. (2006). A future for soil science. *J. Soil Water Conserv.* 61, 148A–151A.

Baveye, P. (2014). Ecological economic perspective in environmental practice: much-needed common sense amid overwhelming market rhetoric. *Environ. Pract.* 16, 246–248. doi: 10.1017/S1466046614000179

Baveye, P., Jacobson, A. R., Allaire, S. E., Tandarich, J. P., and Bryant, R. B. (2006). Whither goes soil science in the United States and Canada? *Soil Sci.* 171, 501–518. doi: 10.1097/01.ss.0000228032.26905.a9

Baveye, P. C. (2009). To sequence or not to sequence the whole-soil metagenome? *Nat. Rev. Microbiol.* 7:756. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2119-c2

Baveye, P. C. (2015). Grand challenges in the research on soil processes. *Front. Environ. Sci.* 3:10. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2015.00010

Baveye, P. C., Baveye, J., and Gowdy, J. (2013). Monetary valuation of ecosystem services: it matters to get the timeline right. *Ecol. Econ.* 95, 231–235. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.009

Baveye, P. C., and Laba, M. (2015). Moving away from the geostatistical lamppost: why, where, and how does the spatial heterogeneity of soils matter? *Ecol. Model.* 298, 24–38. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.03.018

Baveye, P. C., Rangel, D., Jacobson, A. R., Laba, M., Darnault, C., Otten, W., et al. (2011). From dust bowl to dust bowl: soils are still very much a frontier of science. *Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.* 75, 2037–2048. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2011.0145

Beare, M. H., Coleman, D. C., Crossley, D. A., Hendrix, P. F., and Odum, E. P. (1995). A hierarchical approach to evaluating the significance of soil biodiversity to biogeochemical cycling. *Plant Soil* 170, 5–22. doi: 10.1007/BF02183051

Bennett, L. T., Mele, P. M., Annett, S., and Kasel, S. (2010). Examining links between soil management, soil health, and public benefits in agricultural landscapes: an Australian perspective. *Agric. Ecosys. Environ.* 139, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2010.06.017

Bergel, P. (2005). Appropriation de l'espace et propriété du sol. *Novois* 195, 17–27. doi: 10.4000/norois.479

Bergstrom, C. J., Dillman, B. L., and Stoll, J. R. (1985). Public environmental amenity benefits of private land: the case of prime agricultural land. *South. J. Agric. Econ.* 17, 139–149.

Beven, K., and Germann, P. (2013). Macropores and water flow in soils revisited. *Water Resour. Res.* 49, 3071–3092. doi: 10.1002/wrcr.20156

Bielders, C. L., and Baveye, P. (1995). Processes of structural crust formation on coarse-textured soils. *Eur. J. Soil Sci.* 46, 221–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.1995.tb01830.x

Bielders, C. L., Baveye, P., Wilding, L. P., Drees, L. R., and Valentin, C. (1996). Tillage-induced spatial distribution of surface crusts on a sandy Paleustult from Togo. *Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.* 60, 843–855. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1996.03615995006000030024x

Bilotta, G. S., Grove, M., and Mudd, S. M. (2012). Assessing the significance of soil erosion. *Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr.* 37, 342–345. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00497.x

Binkley, D. (2006). "Soils in ecology and ecology in soils," in *Footprints in the Soil: People and Ideas in Soil History*, ed B. Warkentin (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 259–278.

Bizoza, A. R., and De Graaff, J. (2012). Financial cost-benefit analysis of bench terraces in Rwanda. *Land Degrad. Dev.* 23, 103–115. doi: 10.1002/ldr.1051

Blandin, P., and Bergandi, D. (2000). A l'ube d'une nouvelle écologie? *La Recherche* 332, 56–59.

Blouin, M., Sery, N., Cluzeau, D., Brun, J.-J., and Bedecarrats, A. (2013). Balkanized research in ecological engineering revealed by a bibliometric analysis of earthworms and ecosystem services. *Environ. Manage.* 52, 309–320. doi: 10.1007/s00267-013-0079-8
Blum, W. E. H. (1988). "Problems of soil conservation," in *Nature and Environment Series*, Vol. 39. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Steering Committee for the Conservation and Management of the Environment and Natural Habitats (CDPE).

Blum, W. E. H. (1990). The challenge of soil protection in Europe. *Environ. Conserv.* 17, 72-74. doi: 10.1017/S037689290001732X

Blum, W. E. H. (1993). "Soil protection concept of the Council of Europe and integrated soil research," in *Soil and Environment, Integrated Soil and Sediment Research: A Basis for Proper Protection*, Vol. 1, eds H. J. P. Eijsackers and T. Hamers (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher), 37-47.

Blum, W. E. H. (2005). Functions of soil for society and the environment. *Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol.* 4, 75-79. doi: 10.1007/s11157-005-2236-x

Blum, W. E. H., Büsing, J., and Montanarella, L. (2004). Research needs in support of the European thematic strategy for soil protection. *Trends Anal. Chem.* 23, 680-685. doi: 10.1016/j.trac.2004.07.007

Blume, H.-P., Brümmer, G. W., Fleige, H., Horn, R., Kandeler, E., Kögel-Knabner, I., et al. (2016). *Scheffer/Schachtschabel Soil Science*. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Blume, H.-P., Horn, R., and Thiele-Bruhn, S. (2010). *Handbuch des Bodenschutzes: Bodenökologie und -belastung Vorbeugende und abwehrende Schutzmaßnahmen*. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.

Blum, W. E. H., Warkentin, B. P., and Frossard, E. (2006). "Soil, human society and the environment," in *Functions of Soils for Human Societies and the Environment*, Vol. 266, eds E. Frossard, W. E. H. Blum, and B. P. Warkentin (London: The Geological Society of London), 1-8.

Bockstaller, C., Girardin, P., and vanderWerf, H. M. G. (1997). Use of agro-ecological indicators for the evaluation of farming systems. *Eur. J. Agron.* 7, 261-270. doi: 10.1016/S1161-0301(97)00041-5

Boeraeve, F., Dendoncker, N., Jacobs, S., Gomez-Baggethun, E., and Dufrene, M. (2015). How (not) to perform ecosystem service valuations: pricing gorillas in the mist. *Biodivers. Conserv.* 24, 187-197. doi: 10.1007/s10531-014-0829-9

Boivin, N., and Owoc, M. A. (2004). *Soils Stones and Symbols: Cultural Perceptions of the Mineral World*. London: Routledge.

Bojorquez-Tapia, L. A., Cruz-Bello, G. M., and Luna-Gonzalez, L. (2013). Connotative land degradation mapping: a knowledge-based approach to land degradation assessment. *Environ. Model. Softw.* 40, 51-64. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.07.009

Borgogno-Mondino, E., Fabietti, G., and Ajmone-Marsan, F. (2015). Soil quality and landscape metrics as driving factors in a multi-criteria GIS procedure for peri-urban land use planning. *Urban For. Urban Green.* 14, 743-750. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.004

Bouma, J. (1989). "Using soil survey data for quantitative land evaluation," in *Advances in Soil Science*, Vol. 9, ed B. A. Stewart (New York, NY: Springer Verlag), 177-213. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-3532-3_4

Bouma, J. (2002). Land quality indicators of sustainable land management across scales. *Agric. Ecosys. Environ.* 88, 129-136. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00248-1

Bouma, J. (2010). Implications of the knowledge paradox for soil science. *Adv. Agron.* 106, 143-171. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2113(10)06004-9

Bouma, J. (2014). Soil science contributions towards sustainable development goals and their implementation: linking soil functions with ecosystem services. *J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci.* 177, 111-120. doi: 10.1002/jpln.2013.00646

Boyd, J., and Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. *Ecol. Econ.* 63, 616-626. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002

Breure, A. M., De Deyn, G. B., Dominati, E., Eglin, T., Hedlund, K., Van Orshoven, J., et al. (2012). Ecosystem services: a useful concept for soil policy making! *Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.* 4, 578-585. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.010

Brevik, E. C., and Arnold, R. W. (2015). Is the traditional pedologic definition of soil meaningful in the modern context? *Soil Horizons* 56. doi: 10.2136/sh15-01-0002

Briones, M. J. I. (2014). Soil fauna and soil functions: a jigsaw puzzle. *Front. Environ. Sci.* 2:7. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2014.00007

Bristow, K. L., Marchant, S. M., Deurer, M., and Clothier, B. E. (2010). "Enhancing the ecological infrastructure of soils," in *Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science: Soil Solutions for a Changing World*, 1-6 August 2010. *Symposium* 4.1.1 *Valuing the Soil's Natural Capital* (Brisbane, QLD), 13-16.

Bromley, D. W. (1990). The ideology of efficiency - Searching for a theory of policy analysis. *J. Environ. Econ. Manage.* 19, 86-107. doi: 10.1016/0095-0696(90)90062-4

Brown, J. R., and MacLeod, N. D. (1996). Integrating ecology into natural resource management policy. *Environ. Manage.* 20, 289-296. doi: 10.1007/BF01203838

Brümmer, G. (1978). Funktionen des Bodens im Stoffhaushalt der Ökosphäre. *Deutscher Rat für Landespflege: Zum ökologischen Landbau*, 31, 13-20.

Brussaard, L. (2012). "Ecosystem services provided by the soil biota," in *Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services*, ed D. H. Wall (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 45-58.

Brussaard, L., Aanen, D. K., Briones, M. J. I., Decaëns, T., De Beyn, G. B., Fayle, T. M., et al. (2012). "Biogeography and phylogenetic community structure of soil invertebrate ecosystem engineers: Global to local patterns, implications for ecosystem functioning and services and global environmental change impacts," in *Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services*, ed D. H. Wall (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 201-232.

Brussaard, L., Behan-Pelletier, V. M., Bignell, D. E., Brown, V. K., Didden, W., Folgarait, P., et al. (1997). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in soil. *Ambio* 26, 563-570.

Buchan, G. (2010). Ode to Soil. *J. Soil Water Conserv.* 65, 48A-54A. doi: 10.2489/jswc.65.2.48A

Bujnovsky, R., and Vilcek, J. (2012). Soil degradation and soil value in Slovakia - Two problems with common denominator. *Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus* 76, 9-14.

Bulte, E. H., Bouman, B. A. M., Plant, R. A. J., Nieuwenhuyse, A., and Jansen, H. G. P. (2000). The economics of soil nutrient stocks and cattle ranching in the tropics: optimal pasture degradation in humid Costa Rica. *Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ.* 27, 207-226. doi: 10.1093/erae/27.2.207

Burgin, A., Lazar, J. G., Groffman, P. M., Gold, A. J., and Kellogg, D. Q. (2013). Balancing nitrogen retention ecosystem services and greenhouse gas disservices at the landscape scale. *Ecol. Eng.* 56, 26-35. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.05.003

Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Müller, F., and Windhorst, W. (2009). Landscapes capacities to provide ecosystem services - A concept for land-cover based assessments. *Landscape Online* 15, 1-22. doi: 10.3097/LO.200915

Cairns, J., and Niederlehner, B. R. (1994). Estimating the effects of toxicants on ecosystem services. *Environ. Health Perspect.* 102, 936-939. doi: 10.1289/ehp.94102936

Calvet, R. (2003). *Le sol: Propriétés et Fonctions. Tome 1: Constitution et Structure, Phénomènes aux Interfaces*. Paris: Editions France Agricole, Dunod.

Calzolari, C., Ungaro, F., Filippi, N., Guermandi, M., Malucelli, F., Marchi, N., et al (2016). A methodological framework to assess the multiple contributions of soils to ecosystem services delivery at regional scale. *Geoderma* 261, 190-203. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.07.013

Cammas, C. (2003). "L'architecture en terre crue à l' Âge du Fer et à l'époque romaine: apports de la discrimination micromorphologique des modes de mise en œuvre," in *Echanges Transdisciplinaires sur les Constructions en terre Crue*, 1, Table Ronde de Montpellier, eds H. Guillaud, C.-A. de Chazelles, and A. Klein (Montpellier: Éditions de l'espérou), 33-53.

Cardona, A. (2012). "L'introduction de la notion de "services écosystémiques": Pour un nouveau regard sur le sol?", in *6ème Journées de Recherches en Sciences Sociales*. Toulouse. Available online at: www.sfer.asso.fr/content/download/4204/35256/version/2/file/b1uitroona

Caride, C., Pineiro, G., and Maria Paruelo, J. (2012). How does agricultural management modify ecosystem services in the Argentine Pampas? The effects on soil C dynamics. *Agric. Ecosys. Environ.* 154, 23-33. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.031

Celio, E., Koellner, T., and Gret-Regamey, A. (2014). Modeling land use decisions with Bayesian networks: spatially explicit analysis of driving forces on land use change. *Environ. Model. Softw.* 52, 222-233. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.10.014

Cellauro, L., and Richaud, G. (2005). Thomas Jefferson and Francois Cointereaux, professor of rural architecture in revolutionary Paris. *Archit. Hist.* 48, 173-206.

Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., et al. (2012a). Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. *Bioscience* 62, 744-756. doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7

Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., and Goldstein, J. (2012b). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. *Ecol. Econ.* 74, 8-18. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
Charlet, L., Chapron, Y., Faller, P., Kirsch, R., Stone, A. T., and Baveye, P. C. (2012). Neurodegenerative diseases and exposure to the environmental metals Mn, Pb, and Hg. *Coord. Chem. Rev.* 256, 2147–2163. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2012.05.012

Chee, Y. E. (2004). An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. *Biol. Conserv.* 120, 549–565. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.028

Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. (1947). Capital returns from soil conservation practices. *J. Farm Econ.* 29, 1181–1202. doi: 10.2307/1232747

Clark, C. W. (1973). Profit maximization and extinction of species. *J. Polit. Econ.* 81, 950–961. doi: 10.1086/260090

Clawson, M. (1959). *Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of Outdoor Recreation*. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Clothier, B. E., Hall, A. J., Deurer, M., Green, S. R., and Mackay, A. D. (2011). "Soil ecosystem services: Sustaining returns on investment into natural capital," in *Sustaining Soil Productivity in Response to Global Climate Change: Science, Policy, and Ethics*, eds T. J. Sauer, J. Norman, and M. Sivakumar (New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons), 304–356.

Cohen, M. J., Brown, M. T., and Shepherd, K. D. (2006). Estimating the environmental costs of soil erosion at multiple scales in Kenya using energy synthesis. *Agric. Ecosys. Environ.* 114, 249–269. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.10.021

Collard, S. J., and Zammit, C. (2006). Effects of land-use intensification on soil carbon and ecosystem services in Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) landscapes of southeast Queensland, Australia. *Agric. Ecosys. Environ.* 117, 185–194. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.04.004

Comerford, N. B., Franzluebbers, A. J., Stromberger, M. E., Morris, L., Markewitz, D., and Moore, R. (2013). Assessment and evaluation of soil ecosystem services. *Soil Horizons* 54, 1–14. doi: 10.2136/sh12-10-0028

Commission of the European Communities (2006). *Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for the Protection of Soil and Amending Directive 2004/35/EC*. Brussels.

Coomber, N. H., and Biswas, A. K. (1973). *Evaluation of Environmental Intangibles*. Bronxville, NY: Genera Press.

Cooper, M. (2010). Turbulent worlds: financial markets and environmental crisis. *Theory Cult. Soc.* 27, 167–190. doi: 10.1177/0263276409358727

Costanza, R. (2008). Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. *Biol. Conserv.* 141, 350–352. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.020

Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., et al. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. *Glob. Environ. Change Hum. Policy Dimens.* 26, 152–158. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002

Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. *Nature* 387, 253–260.

Council of Europe (1972). *European Soil Charter*. Brussels.

Crouzat, E., Mouchet, M., Turkelboom, F., Byczek, C., Meersmans, J., Berger, F., et al. (2015). Assessing bundles of ecosystem services from regional to landscape scale: insights from the French Alps. *J. Appl. Ecol.* 52, 1145–1155. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12502

Crowards, T. M. (1997). Nonuse values and the environment: economic and ethical motivations. *Environ. Values* 6, 143–167. doi: 10.3197/0963271977766 79167

Daily, G. C. (1997). "Introduction: what are ecosystem services?", in *Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems*, ed G. C. Daily (Washington, DC: Island Press), 1–10.

Daily, G. C., and Matson, P. A. (2008). Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.* 105, 9455–9456. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0804960105

Daily, G. C., Matson, P. A., and Vitousek, P. M. (1997). "Ecosystem services supplied by soil," in *Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems*, ed G. C. Daily (Washington, DC: Island Press), 113–132.

Dale, V. H., and Polasky, S. (2007). Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. *Ecol. Econ.* 64, 286–296. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.009

Davidson, M. D. (2013). On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation. *Ecol. Econ.* 95, 171–177. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.002

Davies, A. L., Bryce, R., and Redpath, S. M. (2013). Use of multicriteria decision analysis to address conservation conflicts. *Conserv. Biol.* 27, 936–944. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12090

Davis, R. K. (1963). Recreation planning as an economic problem. *Nat. Resour. J.* 3, 239–249.

Decaens, T., Jimenez, J. J., Gioia, C., Measey, G. J., and Lavelle, P. (2006). The values of soil animals for conservation biology. *Eur. J. Soil Biol.* 42, S23–S38. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2006.07.001

de Groot, R. S. (1992). *Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning, Management and Decision Making*. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., and Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. *Ecol. Complexity* 7, 260–272. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006

de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., and Boumans, R. M. J. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. *Ecol. Econ.* 41, 393–408. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7

de Laplante, K., and Picasso, V. (2011). "The biodiversity-ecosystem function debate in ecology," in *Philosophy of Ecology*, Vol. 11, eds K. DeLaplante, B. Brown, and K. A. Peacock (Oxford: North Holland), 169–200.

Deloire, A., Vaudour, E., Carey, V., Bonnardot, V., and Van Leeuwen, C. (2005). Grapevine responses to terroir: A global approach. *J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin.* 39, 149–162.

de Silva, N. R., Brooker, S., Hotez, P. J., Montresor, A., Engels, D., and Savioli, L. (2003). Soil-transmitted helminth infections: updating the global picture. *Trends Parasitol.* 19, 547–551. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2003.10.002

Diamond, P. A., and Hausman, J. A. (1994). Contingent valuation - Is some number better than no number. *J. Econ. Perspect.* 8, 45–64. doi: 10.1257/jep.8.4.45

di Castri, F. (1970). "Major problems facing ecologists in the study of soil ecosystems (in French)," in *Methods of Study in Soil Ecology, Proceedings of a Symposium Organized in Paris by Unesco and the International Biological Programme*, ed J. Phillipson (Paris: Unesco), 15–31.

Diderot, D., and D'Alembert, J. L. R. (1777–1780). *Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire Raisonné des Sciences, des Arts et des Métiers par une Société de gens de Lettres (Nouvelle édition)*. Genève: Pellet.

Dominati, E., Mackay, A., Green, S., and Patterson, M. (2014). A soil change-based methodology for the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services from agro-ecosystems: a case study of pastoral agriculture in New Zealand. *Ecol. Econ.* 100, 119–129. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.008

Dominati, E., Mackay, A., and Patterson, M. (2010a). "Modelling the provision of ecosystem services from soil natural capital," in *Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science: Soil Solutions for a Changing World*, 1-6 August 2010. *Congress Symposium 2: Soil Ecosystem Services* (Brisbane, QLD), 32–35.

Dominati, E., Patterson, M., and Mackay, A. (2010b). A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. *Ecol. Econ.* 69, 1858–1868. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.05.002

Dominati, E. J., MacKay, A. D., Bouna, J., and Green, S. (2016). An ecosystems approach to quantify soil performance for multiple outcomes: The future of land evaluation? *Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.* 80, 438–449. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2015.07.0266

Dominati, E. J., Mackay, A., Lynch, B., Heath, N., and Millner, I. (2014). An ecosystem services approach to the quantification of shallow mass movement erosion and the value of soil conservation practices. *Ecosys. Serv.* 9, 204–215. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.006

Douguet, J. M., and O'Connor, M. (2003). Maintaining the integrity of the French terroir: a study of critical natural capital in its cultural context. *Ecol. Econ.* 44, 233–254. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00276-8

Drake, L. (1992). The non-market value of the Swedish agricultural landscape. *Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ.* 19, 351–364. doi: 10.1093/erae/19.3.351

Dunn, R. R. (2010). Global mapping of ecosystem disservices: the unspoken reality that nature sometimes kills us. *Biotropica* 42, 555–557. doi: 10.1111/j.1744- 7429.2010.00698.x

Dupuy, J.-P. (2002). *Pour un Catastrophisme Éclairé: Quand L'impossible est Certain*. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

Edwards-Jones, G., Davies, B., and Hussain, S. (2000). *Ecological Economics: an Introduction*. Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell Science.

Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Richardson, D. M., Le Maitre, D. C., and van Jaarsveld, A. S. (2008). Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. *Agric. Ecosys. Environ.* 127, 135–140. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.03.013
Ehrenfeld, D. W. (1988). "Why put a value on biodiversity?" in *Biodiversity*, eds E. O. Wilson and F. M. Peter (Washington, DC: National Academy Press), 212-216.

Ehrlich, P. R., and Ehrlich, A. H. (1981). *Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species*. New York, NY: Random House.

Eigenbrod, F., Armsworth, P. R., Anderson, B. J., Heinemeyer, A., Gillings, S., Roy, D. B., et al. (2010). The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. *J. Appl. Ecol.* 47, 377–385. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01777.x

El Baba, M., Kayastha, P., and De Smedt, F. (2015). Landfill site selection using multi-criteria evaluation in the GIS interface: a case study from the Gaza Strip, Palestine. *Arab. J. Geosci.* 8, 7499–7513. doi: 10.1007/s12517-014-1736-9

Erfani, M., Afrougheh, S., Ardakani, T., and Sadeghi, A. (2015). Tourism positioning using decision support system (case study: Chahnime-Zabol, Iran). *Environ. Earth Sci.* 74, 3135–3144. doi: 10.1007/s12665-015-4365-z

Faber, J. H., and van Wensem, J. (2012). Elaborations on the use of the ecosystem services concept for application in ecological risk assessment for soils. *Sci. Total Environ.* 415, 3–8. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.059

Fairhead, J., Leach, M., and Scoones, I. (2012). Green Grabbing: a new appropriation of nature? *J. Peasant Stud.* 39, 237–261. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2012.671770

Farmani, R., Henriksen, H. J., Savic, D., and Butler, D. (2012). An evolutionary Bayesian belief network methodology for participatory decision making under uncertainty: an application to groundwater management. *Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag.* 8, 456–461. doi: 10.1002/ieam.192

Feldman, A. (1987). "Welfare economics," in *The New Palgrave: A dictionary of Economics*, eds J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P. K. Newman (London: MacMillan), 889–895.

Fenton, G. R. (1947). The soil fauna, with special reference to the ecosystem of forest soil. *J. Anim. Ecol.* 16, 76–93. doi: 10.2307/1508

Fenton, N., and Neil, M. (2001). Making decisions: using Bayesian nets and MCDA. *Knowl. Based Syst.* 14, 307–325. doi: 10.1016/S0950-7051(00)00071-X

Fenton, O., Vero, S., Ibrahim, T. G., Murphy, P. N. C., Sherriff, S. C., and Huallachain, D. O. (2015). Consequences of using different soil texture determination methodologies for soil physical quality and unsaturated zone time lag estimates. *J. Contam. Hydrol.* 182, 16–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2015.07.004

Ferris, H., and Tuomisto, H. (2015). Unearthing the role of biological diversity in soil health. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* 85, 101–109. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.02.037

Fisher, A. C., Krutilla, J. V., and Cicchett, C. J. (1972). Economics of environmental preservation - Theoretical and empirical analysis. *Am. Econ. Rev.* 62, 605–619.

Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., and Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. *Ecol. Econ.* 68, 643–653. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014

Fontana, V., Radtke, A., Fedrigotti, V. B., Tappeiner, U., Tasser, E., Zerbe, S., et al. (2013). Comparing land-use alternatives: using the ecosystem services concept to define a multi-criteria decision analysis. *Ecol. Econ.* 93, 128–136. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.007

Foudi, S. (2012). The role of farmers' property rights in soil ecosystem services conservation. *Ecol. Econ.* 83, 90–96. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.015

Francesconi, W., Srinivasan, R., Perez-Minana, E., Willcock, S. P., and Quintero, M. (2016). Using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to model ecosystem services: a systematic review. *J. Hydrol.* 535, 625–636. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.01.034

Freckman, W. D., Blackburn, T. H., Brussaard, L., Hutchings, P., Palmer, M. A., and Snelgrove, P. V. R. (1997). Linking biodiversity and ecosystem functioning of soils and sediments. *Ambio* 26, 556–562.

Frede, H. G., Bach, M., Fohrer, N., and Breuer, L. (2002). Interdisciplinary modeling and the significance of soil functions. *J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci.* 165, 460–467. doi: 10.1002/1522-2624(200208)165:4<460::AID-JPLN460>3.0.CO;2-B

Freeman, M. (1993). *The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods*. Washington, DC: Resources for the future.

Fromm, O., and Bruggemann, R. (1999). Economic methods of ecosystem valuation - The soil example. Part III: Economic valuation for the future: the discounting problem (in German). *Umweltwissenschaften Schadstoff Forschung* 11, 235–240. doi: 10.1007/BF03038039

Gaba, S., Lescourret, F., Boudsocq, S., Enjalbert, J., Hinisger, P., Journet, E.-P., et al. (2015). Multiple cropping systems as drivers for providing multiple ecosystem services: from concepts to design. *Agron. Sustain. Dev.* 35, 607–623. doi: 10.1007/s13593-014-0272-z

Garcia-Llorente, M., Martin-Lopez, B., Diaz, S., and Montes, C. (2012). Can ecosystem properties be fully translated into service values? An economic valuation of aquatic plant services. *Ecol. Appl.* 21, 3083–3103. doi: 10.1890/10-1744.1

Garrigues, E., Corson, M. S., Angers, D. A., van der Werf, H. M. G., and Walter, C. (2013). Development of a soil compaction indicator in life cycle assessment. *Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.* 18, 1316–1324. doi: 10.1007/s11367-013-0586-0

Gatto, M., and De Leo, G. A. (2000). Pricing biodiversity and ecosystem services: the never-ending story. *Bioscience* 50, 347–355. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0347:PBAEST]2.3.CO;2

Ghiselin, J. (1978). Perils of the orderly mind: cost-benefit analysis and other logical pitfalls. *Environ. Manage.* 2, 295–300.

Giger, M. (2006). "Soil and land in the millenium ecosystem assessment and the Rio conventions," in *Soils on the Global Agenda. Developing International Mechanisms for Sustainable Land Management*, eds H.urni, M. Giger, and K. Meyer (Bern: Geographica Bernensis), 37-39.

Gignoux, J., Davies, I. D., Flint, S. R., and Zucker, J.-D. (2012). The ecosystem in practice: interest and problems of an old definition for constructing ecological models. *Ecosystems* 14, 1039–1054. doi: 10.1007/s10021-011-9466-2

Glaesner, N., Helming, K., and de Vries, W. (2014). Do current European policies prevent soil threats and support soil functions? *Sustainability* 6, 9538–9563. doi: 10.3390/su6129538

Glendell, M., Granger, S. J., Bol, R., and Brazier, R. E. (2014). Quantifying the spatial variability of soil physical and chemical properties in relation to mitigation of diffuse water pollution. *Geoderma* 214, 25–41. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.10.008

Glenk, K., McVittie, A., and Moran, D. (2012). *Soil and Soil Organic Carbon within an Ecosystem Services Approach Linking Biophysical and Economic Data*. Cupar: Scottish Agricultural College.

Goulding, K. E. (1945). The concept of economic surplus. *Am. Econ. Rev.* 35, 851–869.

Gowdy, J. (2009). *Microeconomic Theory Old and New: A Student's Guide*. Stanford, CA: Stanford Economics and Finance.

Gowdy, J., and Erickson, J. D. (2005). The approach of ecological economics. *Cam. J. Econ.* 29, 207–222. doi: 10.1093/cje/bei033

Gowdy, J., Krall, L., and Chen, Y. (2013). The parable of the bees: beyond proximate causes in ecosystem service valuation. *Environ. Ethics* 35, 41–55. doi: 10.5840/enviroethics20133515

Gowdy, J. M. (1997). The value of biodiversity: markets, society, and ecosystems. *Land Econ.* 73, 25–41. doi: 10.2307/3147075

Gowdy, J. M., Howarth, R. B., and Tisdell, C. (2010). "Discounting, ethics, and options for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem integrity," in *The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations*, ed P. Kumar (London: Earthscan), 257–283.

Graves, A. R., Morris, J., Deeks, L. K., Rickson, R. J., Kibblewhite, M. G., Harris, J. A., et al. (2015). The total costs of soil degradation in England and Wales. *Ecol. Econ.* 119, 399–413. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.026

Grèt-Regamey, A., Brunner, S. H., Altwegg, J., and Bebi, P. (2013). Facing uncertainty in ecosystem services-based resource management. *J. Environ. Manage.* 127, S145–S154. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.028

Grèt-Regamey, A., Weibel, B., Bagstad, K. J., Ferrari, M., Geneletti, D., Klug, H., et al. (2014). On the effects of scale for ecosystem services mapping. *PLoS ONE* 9:e112601. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112601

Guerry, A. D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Daily, G. C., Griffin, R., et al. (2015). Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.* 112, 7348–7355. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1503751112

Guillaud, H. (1997). *Une Grande Figure du Patrimoine Régional Rhône-Alpes: François Cointereaux (1740-1830) - Pionnier de la Construction Moderne en pié*. Les Carnets de l'Architecture de Terre, Monographie Numéro 3. Villefontaine: CRATerre-EAG; École Nationale Supérieure d'Architecture de Grenoble.
Haines-Young, R. (2011). Exploring ecosystem service issues across diverse knowledge domains using Bayesian Belief Networks. *Prog. Phys. Geogr.* 35, 681-699. doi: 10.1177/0309133311422977

Halstead, J. M. (1984). Measuring the nonmarket value of Massachusetts agricultural land: a case study. *J. Northeast. Agric. Econ. Counc.* 13, 12-19.

Hanley, N. (1992). Are there environmental limits to cost benefit analysis? *Environ. Resour. Econ.* 2, 33-59.

Hanley, N., Spash, C., and Walker, L. (1995). Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection. *Envir. Res. Econ.* 5, 249-272. doi: 10.1007/BF00691519

Hausman, J. (2012). Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. *J. Econ. Perspect.* 26, 43-56. doi: 10.1257/jep.26.4.43

Haygarth, P. M., and Ritz, K. (2009). The future of soils and land use in the UK: soil systems for the provision of land-based ecosystem services. *Land Use Policy* 26, S187-S197. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09.016

Heal, G. (2000). Valuing ecosystem services. *Ecosystems* 3, 24-30. doi: 10.1007/s100210000006

Hedlund, K., and Harris, J. (2012). "Delivery of ecosystem services: From Gaia to genes," in *Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services*, ed D. H. Wall (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 98-109.

Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R. S., and van Ierland, E. C. (2006). Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. *Ecol. Econ.* 57, 209-228. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005

Hellec, F., Brives, H., Blanchart, E., Deverre, C., Garnier, P., Payet, V., et al. (2015). L'évolution des sciences du sol face à l'émergence de la notion de service écosystémique. *Étude Gestion Sols* 22, 101-115.

Helm, D. (2015). *Natural Capital: Valuing the Planet*. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Henriksen, H. J., Zorrilla-Miras, P., de la Hera, A., and Brugnach, M. (2012). Use of Bayesian belief networks for dealing with ambiguity in integrated groundwater management. *Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag.* 8, 430-444. doi: 10.1002/ieam.195

Herrmann, B. (2006). Man is made of mud: "Soil," bio-logical facts and fiction, and environmental history. *Die Bodenkultur* 57, 215-230.

Hewitt, A., Dominati, E., Webb, T., and Cuthill, T. (2015). Soil natural capital quantification by the stock adequacy method. *Geoderma* 241, 107-114. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.11.014

Hines, R. (1991). On valuing nature. *Account. Audit. Account. J.* 4, 27-29. doi: 10.1108/09513579110144802

Hockley, N. (2014). Cost-benefit analysis: a decision-support tool or a venue for contesting ecosystem knowledge? *Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy* 32, 283-300. doi: 10.1068/c1384j

Hodder, K. H., Newton, A. C., Cantarello, E., and Perrella, L. (2014). Does landscape-scale conservation management enhance the provision of ecosystem services? *Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosys. Serv. Manage.* 10, 71-83. doi: 10.1080/21513732.2014.883430

Hopmans, J. W. (2007). A plea to reform soil science education. *Soil Sci. Soc. of Am. J.* 71, 639-640. doi: 10.2136/sssaaj2007.0083l

Horrocks, C. A., Dungait, J. A. J., Cardenas, L. M., and Hea, K. V. (2014). Does extensification lead to enhanced provision of ecosystems services from soils in UK agriculture? *Land Use Policy* 38, 123-128. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.10.023

Hotelling, H. (1949). "Letter to the director of national park service," in *The Economics of Public Recreation: The Prewitt Report*, ed R. A. Prewitt (Washington, DC: Department of Interior).

Huang, I. B., Keisler, J., and Linkov, I. (2011). Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. *Sci. Total Environ.* 409, 3578-3594. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.022

Hueting, R. (1970). *Wat is de Natuur ons Waard? Een Econoom Over Milieuverslechtering*. Amsterdam: Het wereldvenster/baarn.

Humphries, D., Sara, N., Boakye, D., Wilson, M., and Cappello, M. (2012). The promise and pitfalls of mass drug administration to control intestinal helminth infections. *Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis.* 25, 584-589. doi: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e328357e4cf

Iniesta-Arandia, I., Garcia-Llorente, M., Aguilera, P. A., Montes, C., and Martin-Lopez, B. (2014). Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. *Ecol. Econ.* 108, 36-48. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.028

Jacobson, A. R., Militello, R., and Baveye, P. C. (2009). Development of computer-assisted virtual field trips to support multidisciplinary learning. *Comput. Educ.* 52, 571-580. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.007

Jaillard, B., Rapaport, A., Harmand, J., Brauman, A., and Nunan, N. (2014). Community assembly effects shape the biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationships. * Funct. Ecol.* 28, 1523-1533. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12267

Jax, K. (2005). Function and "functioning" in ecology: what does it mean? *Oikos* 111, 641-648. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2005.13851.x

Jax, K., Barton, D. N., Chan, K. M. A., de Groot, R., Doyle, U., Eser, U., et al. (2013). Ecosystem services and ethics. *Ecol. Econ.* 93, 260-268. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.008

Jax, K., and Heink, U. (2015). Searching for the place of biodiversity in the ecosystem services discourse. *Biol. Conserv.* 191, 198-205. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.06.032

Jiang, M., Lu, X. G., Xu, L. S., Chu, L. J., and Tong, S. Z. (2007). Flood mitigation benefit of wetland soil - A case study in momoge national nature reserve in China. *Ecol. Econ.* 61, 217-223. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.019

Johnson, K. A., Polasky, S., Nelson, E., and Pennington, D. (2012). Uncertainty in ecosystem services valuation and implications for assessing land use tradeoffs: an agricultural case study in the Minnesota River Basin. *Ecol. Econ.* 79, 71-79. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.020

Jonas, H. (1984). *The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of Ethics for the Technological Age*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jones, D. L., Cross, P., Withers, P. J. A., DeLuca, T. H., Robinson, D. A., Quilliam, R. S., et al. (2013). Nutrient stripping: the global disparity between food security and soil nutrient stocks. *J. Appl. Ecol.* 50, 851-862. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12089

Kallis, G., Gomez-Baggethun, E., and Zografos, C. (2013). To value or not to value? That is not the question. *Ecol. Econ.* 94, 97-105. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.002

Karl, J. (1997). Soil evaluation in landscape planning. Method of assessing impact on the soil and the soil water balance. *Naturschutz Landschaftsplanung* 29, 5-17.

Karsenty, A., and Ezzine de Blas, D. (2014). "Du mésusage des métaphores: Les paiements pour services environnementaux sont-ils des instruments de marchandisation de la nature?" in *L'instrumentation de l'Action Publique: Controverses, Résistances, Effets*, eds C. Halpern, P. Lascoumes, and P. Le Galès (Paris: Presse des Sciences Po), 161-189.

Keesstra, S. D., Geissen, V., Mosse, K., Piirainen, S., Scudiero, E., Leistra, M., et al. (2012). Soil as a filter for groundwater quality. *Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.* 4, 507-516. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.007

Keith, A. M., Schmidt, O., and McMahon, B. J. (2016). Soil stewardship as a nexus between ecosystem services and one health. *Ecosys. Serv.* 17, 40-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.008

Keller, C., Lambert-Habib, M.-L., Robert, S., Ambrosi, J.-P., and Rabot, É. (2012). Méthodologie pour la prise en compte des sols dans les documents d'urbanisme: application à deux communes du bassin minier de Provence. *Sud Ouest Eur.* 33, 11-24. doi: 10.4000/soe.173

Kelman, S. (1981). Cost-benefit analysis: an ethical critique. *Regulation* 5, 33-40.

Kenter, J. O., Hyde, T., Christie, M., and Fazey, I. (2011). The importance of deliberation in valuing ecosystem services in developing countries-evidence from the Solomon Islands. *Glob. Environ. Change Hum. Policy Dimens.* 21, 505-521. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.001

Kenter, J. O., O'Brien, L., Hockley, N., Ravenscroft, N., Fazey, I., Irvine, K. N., et al. (2015). What are shared and social values of ecosystems? *Ecol. Econ.* 111, 86-99. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006

Kibblewhite, M. G., Ritz, K., and Swift, M. J. (2008). Soil health in agricultural systems. *Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.* 363, 685-701. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2178

Kirchhoff, T. (2012). Pivotal cultural values of nature cannot be integrated into the ecosystem services framework. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.* 109, E3146-E3146. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212409109

Kline, J., and Wichelns, D. (1996). Measuring public preferences for the environmental amenities provided by farmland. *Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ.* 23, 421-436. doi: 10.1093/erae/23.4.421

Knetsch, J. L. (2005). Gains, losses, and the US-EPA Economic analyses guidelines: a hazardous product? *Environ. Resour. Econ.* 32, 91-112. doi: 10.1007/s10640-005-6029-z
Knights, P., Admiraal, J., Wossink, A. N., Banerjee, P., O'Neill, J., and Scott, M. (2013). *Economic Environmental Valuation: An Analysis of Limitations and Alternatives - Biomot Project Deliverable 1.1*. Brussels: European Commission.

Konarska, K. M., Sutton, P. C., and Castellon, M. (2002). Evaluating scale dependence of ecosystem service valuation: a comparison of NOAA-AVHRR and Landsat TM datasets. *Ecol. Econ.* 41, 491–507. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00096-4

Kovda, V. A., Bugrovskii, V. V., Kerzhentsev, A. S., and Zelenskaia, N. N. (1990). A model of organic matter transformation in soil for quantitative study of soil functions in ecosystems. *Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR* 312, 759–762.

Kroeger, T., and Casey, F. (2007). An assessment of market-based approaches to providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands. *Ecol. Econ.* 64, 321–332. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.021

Krutilla, J. V. (1967). Conservation reconsidered. *Am. Econ. Rev.* 57, 777–789.

Kumar, P. (2010). *The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations*. London: Earthscan.

Kumar, P., Brondizio, E., Gatzweiler, F., Gowdy, J., de Groot, R., Pascual, U., et al. (2013). The economics of ecosystem services: from local analysis to national policies. *Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.* 5, 78–86. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.02.001

Kuo, W. L., Steenhuis, T. S., McCulloch, C. E., Mohler, C. L., Weinstein, D. A., and Swaney, D. P. (1999). Effect of grid size on runoff and soil moisture for a variable-source-area hydrology model. *Water Resour. Res.* 35, 3419–3428. doi: 10.1029/1999WR900183

Lal, R., Lorenz, K., Hüttl, R. F., Schneider, B. U., and von Braun, J. (2013). *Ecosystem Services and Carbon Sequestration in the Biosphere*. Dordrecht: Springer.

Lalucq, A., and Black, W. K. (2015). *Les Banquiers Contre les Banques: Le Rôle de la Criminalité en col Blanc Dans les Crises Financières*. Paris: Les Petits Matins/Veblen Institute.

Lamarque, P., Lavorel, S., Mouchet, M., and Quétier, F. (2014). Plant trait-based models identify direct and indirect effects of climate change on bundles of grassland ecosystem services. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.* 111, 13751–13756. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1216051111

Landuyt, D., Broekx, S., D'Hondt, R., Engelen, G., Aertsens, J., and Goethals, P. L. M. (2013). A review of Bayesian belief networks in ecosystem service modelling. *Environ. Model. Softw.* 46, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.03.011

Landuyt, D., Van der Biest, K., Broekx, S., Staes, J., Meire, P., and Goethals, P. L. M. (2015). A GIS plug-in for Bayesian belief networks: towards a transparent software framework to assess and visualise uncertainties in ecosystem service mapping. *Environ. Model. Softw.* 71, 30–38. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.05.002

Laterra, P., Orue, M. E., and Booman, G. C. (2012). Spatial complexity and ecosystem services in rural landscapes. *Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.* 154, 56–67. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.013

Laurans, Y., and Aoubid, S. (2011). “L’économie au secours de la biodiversité? La légende des Catskills revisitée,” in *Working Paper*, Vol. 14. Paris: Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales (IDDRI), Sciences Po.

Laurans, Y., and Mermet, L. (2014). Ecosystem services economic valuation, decision-support system or advocacy? *Ecosys. Serv.* 7, 98–105. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.10.002

Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Bille, R., Pirard, R., and Mermet, L. (2013). Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot. *J. Environ. Manage.* 119, 208–219. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.008

Lautenbach, S., Maes, J., Kattwinkel, M., Seppelt, R., Strauch, M., Scholz, M., et al. (2012). Mapping water quality-related ecosystem services: concepts and applications for nitrogen retention and pesticide risk reduction. *Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosys. Serv. Manage.* 8, 35–49. doi: 10.1080/21513732.2011.631940

Lavelle, P. (1996). Diversity of soil fauna and ecosystem function. *Biol. Int.* 33, 3–16.

Lavelle, P. (2000). Ecological challenges for soil science. *Soil Sci.* 165, 73–86. doi: 10.1097/00010694-200001000-00009

Lavelle, P., Decaens, T., Aubert, M., Barot, S., Blouin, M., Bureau, F., et al. (2006). Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services. *Eur. J. Soil Biol.* 42, S3–S15. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2006.10.002

Lavelle, P., Lattaud, C., Trigo, D., and Barois, I. (1995). Mutualism and biodiversity in soils. *Plant Soil* 170, 23–33. doi: 10.1007/BF02183052

Lehmann, A., David, S., and Stahr, K. (2008). *Technique for Soil Evaluation and Categorization for Natural and Anthropogenic Soils*. Series Hohenheimer Bodenkundliche Hefte, Vol. 86. Hohenheim: Universität Hohenheim; Institut für Bodenkunde und Standortstlehre.

Lehmann, A., and Stahr, K. (2010). The potential of soil functions and planner-oriented soil evaluation to achieve sustainable land use. *J. Soils Sediments* 10, 1092–1102. doi: 10.1007/s11368-010-0207-5

Leh, M. D. K., Matlock, M. D., Cummings, E. C., and Nalley, L. L. (2013). Quantifying and mapping multiple ecosystem services change in West Africa. *Agric. Ecosys. Environ.* 165, 6–18. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2012.12.001

Leitch, J. A., and Scott, D. F. (1977). *A Selected Annotated Bibliography of Economic Values of Fish and Wildlife and their Habitats*. Agricultural Economics Miscellaneous Report No. 27, Department of Agricultural Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota.

Lele, S., Springate-Baginski, O., Lakerveld, R., Deb, D., and Dashe, P. (2013). Ecosystem services: origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. *Conserv. Soc.* 11, 343–358. doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.125752

Leopold, A. (1949). *A Sand County Almanac*. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Letey, J., Sojka, R. E., Upchurch, D. R., Cassel, D. K., Olson, K. R., Payne, W. A., et al. (2003). Deficiencies in the soil quality concept and its application. *J. Soil Water Conserv.* 58, 180–187.

Lettens, S., Van Orshoven, J., van Wesemael, B., De Vos, B., and Muys, B. (2005). Stocks and fluxes of soil organic carbon for landscape units in Belgium derived from heterogeneous data sets for 1990 and 2000. *Geoderma* 127, 11–23. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.11.001

Levine, J., Chan, K. M. A., and Satterfield, T. (2015). From rational actor to efficient complexity manager: excorcing the ghost of Homo economicus with a unified synthesis of cognition research. *Ecol. Econ.* 114, 22–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.010

Liang, S.-Y., Lehmann, A., Wu, K.-N., and Stahr, K. (2014). Perspectives of function-based soil evaluation in land-use planning in China. *J. Soils Sediments* 14, 10–22. doi: 10.1007/s11368-013-0787-y

Li, F., Wang, R., Hu, D., Ye, Y., Yang, W., and Liu, H. (2014). Measurement methods and applications for beneficial and detrimental effects of ecological services. *Ecol. Indic.* 47, 102–111. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014. 06.032

Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F. K., Kiker, G., Seager, T. P., Bridges, T., Gardner, K. H., et al. (2006). Multicriteria decision analysis: a comprehensive decision approach for management of contaminated sediments. *Risk Anal.* 26, 61–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00713.x

Lin, Q. F. (2014). Aldo Leopold's unrealized proposals to rethink economics. *Ecol. Econ.* 108, 104–114. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.018

Liu, S., Crossman, N. D., Nolan, M., and Ghirmay, H. (2013). Bringing ecosystem services into integrated water resources management. *J. Environ. Manage.* 129, 92–102. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.047

Ljung, K., Maley, F., Cook, A., and Weinstein, P. (2009). Acid sulfate soils and human health-a millennium ecosystem assessment. *Environ. Int.* 35, 1234–1242. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2009.07.002

Logsdon, R. A., and Chaubey, I. (2013). A quantitative approach to evaluating ecosystem services. *Ecol. Model.* 257, 57–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.02.009

Loreau, M. (2010). Linking biodiversity and ecosystems: towards a unifying ecological theory. *Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.* 365, 49–60. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0155

Luck, G. W., Chan, K. M. A., Eser, U., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Matzdorf, B., Norton, B., et al. (2012). Ethical considerations in on-ground applications of the ecosystem services concept. *Bioscience* 62, 1020–1029. doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.12.4

Lyytimäki, J. (2015). Ecosystem disservices: embrace the catchword. *Ecosys. Serv.* 12, 136–136. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.008

Lyytimäki, J., Petersen, L. K., Normander, B., and Bezák, P. (2008). Nature as nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. *Environ. Sci.* 5, 161–172. doi: 10.1080/15693430802055254

Mace, G. M., Norris, K., and Fitter, A. H. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. *Trends Ecol. Evol.* 27, 19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006
Madena, K., Bormann, H., and Giani, L. (2012). Soil functions - Today's situation and further development under climate change. *Arch. Sci. Geogr.* 66, 221-237. doi: 10.3112/erdkunde.2012.03.03

Mandel, J. T., Donlan, C. J., and Armstrong, J. (2010). A derivative approach to endangered species conservation. *Front. Ecol. Environ.* 8, 44-49. doi: 10.1890/070170

Martins, M. D. R., and Angers, D. A. (2015). Different plant types for different soil ecosystem services. *Geoderma* 237, 266-269. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.09.013

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. *Psychol. Rev.* 50, 370-396. doi: 10.1037/h0054364

Ma, S., and Swinton, S. M. (2011). Valuation of ecosystem services from rural landscapes using agricultural land prices. *Ecol Econ.* 70, 1649-1659. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.004

Max-Neef, M. (1991). *Human Scale Development*. New York, NY: Apx Press.

McAfee, K. (1999). Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and green
developmentalism. *Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space* 17, 133-154. doi:
10.1068/d170133

McAfee, K. (2012). The contradictory logic of global ecosystem services markets. *Dev. Change* 43, 105-131. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01745.x

McBratney, A., Field, D. J., and Koch, A. (2014). The dimensions of soil security. *Geoderma* 213, 203-213. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.08.013

McCallister, R., and Nowak, P. (1998). "Whole-soil knowledge and management: a foundation of soil quality," in *Soil Quality and Soil Erosion*, ed R. Lal (Ankeny, IA: CRC Press), 173-193.

McCauley, D. J. (2006). Selling out on nature. *Nature* 443, 27-28. doi: 10.1038/443027a

McDonnell, J. J., Sivapalan, M., Vaché, K., Dunn, S., Grant, G., Haggerty, R., et al. (2007). Moving beyond heterogeneity and process complexity: a new vision for watershed hydrology. *Water Resour. Res.* 43:W07301. doi: 10.1029/2006WR005467

McNeill, J. R., and Winiwarter, A. (2004). Breaking the sod: humankind, history, and soil. *Science* 304, 1627-1629. doi: 10.1126/science.1099893

Meersmans, J., De Ridder, F., Canters, F., De Baets, S., and Van Molle, M. (2008). A multiple regression approach to assess the spatial distribution of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) at the regional scale (Flanders, Belgium). *Geoderma* 143, 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.08.025

Menon, M., Rousseva, S., Nikolaidis, N. P., van Gaans, P., Panagos, P., Souza, D. M., et al. (2014). SoilTrEC: a global initiative on critical zone research and integration. *Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.* 21, 3191-3195. doi: 10.1007/s11356-013-2346-x

Menzie, C. A., Deardorff, T., Booth, P., and Wickwire, T. (2012). Refocusing on nature: holistic assessment of ecosystem services. *Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag.* 8, 401-411. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1279

Milcu, A. I., Hanspach, J., and Fischer, J. (2013). Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. *Ecol. Soc.* 18, 44. doi: 10.5751/ES-05790-180344

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). *Ecosystems and Human Well-Being*.
Washington, DC: Island Press.

Millikan, R. G. (1989). An ambiguity in the notion of function. *Biol. Philos.* 4, 172-176. doi: 10.1007/BF00127747

Minamikawa, K., Nishimura, S., Sawamoto, T., Nakajima, Y., and Yagi, K. (2010). Annual emissions of dissolved CO2, CH4, and N2O in the subsurface drainage from three cropping systems. *Glob. Chang. Biol.* 16, 796-809. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01931.x

Mirowski, P. (2013). *Never Let a Serious Crisis go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown*. London: Verso.

Mishra, P. K., and Rai, S. C. (2014). A cost-benefit analysis of indigenous soil and water conservation measures in Sikkim Himalaya, India. *Mt. Res. Dev.* 34, 27-35. doi: 10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-12-00013.1

Mitchell, R. C., and Carson, R. T. (1989). *Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method*. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Morel, J. L., Chenu, C., and Lorenz, K. (2014). Ecosystem services provided by soils of urban, industrial, traffic, mining, and military areas (SUITMAs). *J. Soils Sediments* 15, 1659-1666. doi: 10.1007/s11368-014-0926-0

More, T. A., Averill, J. R., and Stevens, T. H. (1996). Values and economics in environmental management: a perspective and critique. *J. Environ. Manage.* 48, 397-409. doi: 10.1006/jema.1996.0086

Morio, M., Schadler, S., and Finkel, M. (2013). Applying a multi-criteria genetic algorithm framework for brownfield reuse optimization: improving redevelopment options based on stakeholder preferences. *J. Environ. Manage.* 130, 331-346. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.09.002

Mulder, C., Boit, A., Bonkowski, M., De Ruiter, P. C., Mancinelli, G., Van der Heijden, M. G. A., et al. (2011). "A belowground perspective on Dutch agroecosystems: how soil organisms interact to support ecosystem services," *Adv. Ecol. Res.* 44, 277-357.

Munda, G. (2008). *Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy*. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Murray-Rust, D., Dendoncker, N., Dawson, T. P., Acosta-Michlik, L., Karali, E., Guillem, E., et al. (2011). Conceptualising the analysis of socio-ecological systems through ecosystem services and agent-based modelling. *J. Land Use Sci.* 6, 83-99. doi: 10.1080/1747423X.2011.558600

Nagel, E. (1961). *The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation*. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Nahmani, J., van Oort, F., Lapied, E., Rouland, C., and Lavelle, P. (2003). The effects of metals on the soil ecosystems. *Biofutur*, 40-42.

Norgaard, R. B. (1989). The case for methodological pluralism. *Ecol. Econ.* 1, 37-57. doi: 10.1016/0921-8009(89)90023-2

Norgaard, R. B. (2010). Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. *Ecol. Econ.* 69, 1219-1227. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009

Nortcliff, S. (2002). Standardisation of soil quality attributes. *Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.* 88, 161-168. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00253-5

O'Neill, R. V. (2001). Is it time to bury the ecosystem concept? (With full military honors of course!). *Ecology* 82, 3275-3284. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[3275:ITTBT]2.0.CO;2

O'Sullivan, L., Creamer, R. E., Fealy, R., Lanigan, G., Simo, I., Fenton, O., et al. (2015). Functional land management for managing soil functions: a case-study of the trade-off between primary productivity and carbon storage in response to the intervention of drainage systems in Ireland. *Land Use Policy* 47, 42-54. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.03.007

Odum, E. P. (1959). *Fundamentals of Ecology*, Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.
Oliver, M. A. (1997). Soil and human health: a review. *Eur. J. Soil Sci.* 48, 573-592. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2389.1997.00124.x

Oosterbroek, B., de Kraker, J., Huynen, M. M. T. E., and PimMartens, P. (2016). Assessing ecosystem impacts on health: a tool review. *Ecosyst. Serv.* 17, 237-254. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.12.008

Orenstein, D. (2013). More than language is needed in valuing ecosystem services. *Bioscience* 63, 913-913. doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.12.17

Ottoy, S., Beckers, V., Jacxsens, P., Hermy, M., and Van Orshoven, J. (2015). Multi-level statistical soil profiles for assessing regional soil organic carbon stocks. *Geoderma* 253, 12-20. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.04.001

Palm, C., Sanchez, P., Ahamed, S., and Awiti, A. (2007). Soils: a contemporary perspective. *Ann. Rev. Environ. Res.* 32, 99-129. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.31.020105.100307

Parks, S., and Gowdy, J. M. (2013). What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review essay. *Ecosyst. Serv.* 3, e1-e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.12.002

Pascual, U., Termansen, M., Hedlund, K., Brussaard, L., Faber, J. H., Foudi, S., et al. (2015). On the value of soil biodiversity and ecosystem services. *Ecosyst. Serv.* 15, 11-18. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.06.002

Pearce, D. (1976). Limits of cost-benefit analysis as a guide to environmental policy.
*Kyklos* 29, 97-112. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6435.1976.tb01962.x

Pearce, D. (1998). Auditing the earth. *Environment* 40, 23-28. doi: 10.1080/00139159809605092

Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., and Mourato, S. (2006). *Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments*. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Pearce, D. W., and Turner, R. K. (1990). *Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment*. Baltimore, MA: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Pepper, I. L., Gerba, C. P., Newby, D. T., and Rice, C. W. (2009). Soil: a public health threat or savior? *Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol.* 39, 416-432. doi: 10.1080/10643380701664748

Perrings, C. (2014). *Our Uncommon Heritage: Biodiversity Change, Ecosystem Services, and Human Wellbeing*. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pesche, D. (2013). *Le millennium ecosystem assessment: anatomie d'une evaluation environnementale globale*. *Nat. Sci. Soc.* 21, 363-372. doi: 10.1051/nss/2014001
Peukert, S., Bol, R., Roberts, W., Macleod, C. J. A., Murray, P. J., Dixon, E. R., et al. (2012). Understanding spatial variability of soil properties: a key step in establishing field- to farm-scale agro-ecosystem experiments. *Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom.* 26, 2413–2421. doi: 10.1002/rcm.6336

Philippot, L., Spor, A., Henault, C., Bru, D., Bizouard, F., Jones, C. M., et al. (2013). Loss in microbial diversity affects nitrogen cycling in soil. *ISME J.* 7, 1609–1619. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2013.34

Pimentel, D., Harvey, C., Resosudarmo, P., Sinclair, K., Kurz, D., McNair, M., et al. (1995). Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. *Science* 267, 1117–1123. doi: 10.1126/science.267.5201.1117

Pimentel, D., Wilson, C., McCullum, C., Huang, R., Dwen, P., Flack, J., et al. (1997). Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity. *Bioscience* 47, 747–757. doi: 10.2307/1313097

Polanyi, K. (1944). *The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of our Time*. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Polasky, S., and Segerson, K. (2009). Integrating ecology and economics in the study of ecosystem services: some lessons learned. *Ann. Rev. Resour. Econ.* 1, 409–434. doi: 10.1146/annurev.resource.050708.144110

Porthin, M., Rosqvist, T., Perrels, A., and Molarius, R. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis in adaptation decision-making: a flood case study in Finland. *Reg. Environ. Change* 13, 1171–1180. doi: 10.1007/s10113-013-0423-9

Power, A. G. (2012). Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. *Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sci.* 365, 2959–2971. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0143

President's Council for Sustainable Development (1996). *A New Consensus for the Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment for the Future*. Washington, DC. Available online at: http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/TF_Reports/amer-top.html (Accessed May 29, 2016).

Pulleman, M., Creamer, R., Hamer, U., Helder, J., Pelosi, C., Peres, G., et al. (2012). Soil biodiversity, biological indicators and soil ecosystem services-an overview of European approaches. *Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability* 4, 529–538. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.009

Rampazzo, N., Blum, W. E. H., and Wimmer, B. (1998). Assessment of soil structure parameters and functions in agricultural soils. *Bodenkultur* 49, 69–84.

Raymond, C. M., Singh, G. G., Benessaiah, K., Bernhardt, J. R., Levine, J., Nelson, H., et al. (2013). Ecosystem services and beyond: using multiple metaphors to understand human-environment relationships. *Bioscience* 63, 536–546. doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7

Redford, K. H., and Adams, W. M. (2009). Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. *Conserv. Biol.* 23, 785–787. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01271.x

Reed, M. S., Hubacek, K., Bonn, A., Burt, T. P., Holden, J., Stringer, L. C., et al. (2013). Anticipating and managing future trade-offs and complementarities between ecosystem services. *Ecol. Soc.* 18:5. doi: 10.5751/ES-04924-180105

Renison, D., Hensen, I., Suarez, R., Cingolani, A. M., Marcora, P., and Giorgis, M. A. (2010). Soil conservation in Polylepis mountain forests of Central Argentina: is livesotck reducing our natural capital? *Aust. Ecol.* 35, 435–443. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2009.02055.x

Restrepo Estrada, C., and Alvia Ramirez, M. (2013). Optimal land use under environmental and economical approaches (in Spanish). *Rev. Fac. Ing. Univ. Antioquia* 69, 229–243.

Ridker, R. G., and Henning, J. A. (1967). The determinants of residential property values with special reference to air pollution. *Rev. Econ. Stat.* 49, 246–257. doi: 10.2307/1928231

Ritz, K., Black, H. I. J., Campbell, C. D., Harris, J. A., and Wood, C. (2009). Selecting biological indicators for monitoring soils: a framework for balancing scientific and technical opinion to assist policy development. *Ecol. Indic.* 9, 1212–1221. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.02.009

Robbins, M., Olewiler, N., and Robinson, M. (2009). *An Estimate of the Public Amenity Benefits and Ecological Goods Provided by Farmland in Metro Vancouver*. Vancouver, BC: Fraser Basin Council.

Robertson, M. (2012). *Functions, Services and Values*. Wetlandia. Available online at: http://wetlandia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/functions-services-and-values.html (Accessed 29 May 2016).

Robert, M. (2005). “La Resource en Sols: Menaces, Nouveaux Enjeux et Mesures de Protection,” in Sols et Environnement, eds M. C. Girard, C. Walter, J. C. Rémy, J. Berthelin and J. L. Morel (Paris, Dunod), 833–858.

Robinson, D. A., Emmett, B. A., Reynolds, B., Rowe, E. C., Spurgeon, D., Keith, A. M., et al. (2012a). “Soil natural capital and ecosystem service delivery in a

world of global soil change,” in *Soils and Food Security*, eds R. E. Hester and R. M. Harrison (London: Royal Society of Chemistry), 41–68.

Robinson, D. A., Fraser, I., Dominati, E. J., Davidsdottir, B., Jonsson, J. O. G., Jones, L., et al. (2014). On the value of soil resources in the context of natural capital and ecosystem service delivery. *Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.* 78, 685–700. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2014.01.0017

Robinson, D. A., Hockley, N., Cooper, D. M., Emmett, B. A., Keith, A. M., Lebron, I., et al. (2013a). Natural capital and ecosystem services, developing an appropriate soils framework as a basis for valuation. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* 57, 1023–1033. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.09.008

Robinson, D. A., Hockley, N., Dominati, E., Lebron, I., Scow, K. M., Reynolds, B., et al. (2012b). Natural capital, ecosystem services, and soil change: why soil science must embrace an ecosystems approach. *Vadose Zone J.* 11. doi: 10.2136/vzj2011.0051

Robinson, D. A., Jackson, B. M., Clothier, B. E., Dominati, E. J., Marchant, S. C., Cooper, D. M., et al. (2013b). Advances in soil ecosystem services: concepts, models, and applications for earth system life support. *Vadose Zone J.* 12. doi: 10.2136/vzj2013.01.0027

Robinson, D. A., and Lebron, I. (2010). On the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. *Ecol. Econ.* 70, 137–138. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.08.012

Robinson, D. A., Lebron, I., and Vereecken, H. (2009). On the definition of the natural capital of soils: a framework for description, evaluation, and monitoring. *Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.* 73, 1904–1911. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2008.0332

Rodenburg, J., Zwart, S. J., Kiepe, P., Narteh, L. T., Dogbe, W., and Wopereis, M. C. S. (2014). Sustainable rice production in African inland valleys: seizing regional potentials through local approaches. *Agric. Syst.* 123, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2013.09.004

Rodrigues, S. M., Pereira, M. E., da Silva, E. F., Hurshouse, A. S., and Duarte, A. C. (2009). A review of regulatory decisions for environmental protection: part I - challenges in the implementation of national soil policies. *Environ. Int.* 35, 202–213. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2008.08.007

Rolston, H. (1985). Valuing wildlands. *Environ. Ethics* 7, 23–48. doi: 10.5840/enviroethics19857111

Rosen, L., Back, P. E., Soderqvist, T., Norrmman, J., Brinkhoff, P., Norberg, T., et al. (2015). SCORE: a novel multi-criteria decision analysis approach to assessing the sustainability of contaminated land remediation. *Sci. Total Environ.* 511, 621–638. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.058

Rositano, F., and Ferraro, D. O. (2014). Ecosystem services provided by agroecosystems: a qualitative and quantitative assessment of this relationship in the Pampa region, Argentina. *Environ. Manage.* 53, 606–619. doi: 10.1007/s00267-013-0211-9

Rousseau, J.-J. (1754) (reprinted in 1992). *Discours sur l'Origine et les Fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes*. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion.

Rouvellac, E. (2008). Le concept de Terroir, existence, définition et adéquation avec la viticulture. *Historiens et Géographes* 404, 79–90.

Ruiz, M. C., Romero, E., Perez, M. A., and Fernandez, I. (2012). Development and application of a multi-criteria spatial decision support system for planning sustainable industrial areas in Northern Spain. *Autom. Constr.* 22, 320–333. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.09.009

Rulli, M. C., Saviore, A., and D'Odorico, P. (2013). Global land and water grabbing. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.* 110, 892–897. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213163110

Rumpel, C., and Koegel-Knabner, I. (2011). Deep soil organic matter-a key but poorly understood component of terrestrial C cycle. *Plant Soil* 338, 143–158. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0391-5

Rutgers, M., van Wijnen, H. J., Schouten, A. J., Mulder, C., Kuiten, A. M. P., Brussaard, L., et al. (2012). A method to assess ecosystem services developed from soil attributes with stakeholders and data of four arable farms. *Sci. Total Environ.* 415, 39–48. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.04.041

Ryszkowski, L. (1995). Managing ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. *Nat. Res.* 31, 27–36.

Saarikoski, H., Barton, D. N., Mustajoki, J., H., K., Gomez-Baggethun, E., and Langemeyer, J. (2015). "Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in ecosystem service valuation," in *OpenNESS Ecosystem Service Reference Book, Vol. EC FP7*, eds M. Potschin and K. Jax Brussels (Belgium: European Commission) Grant Agreement no. 308428. Available online at: http://www.openness-project.eu/sites/default/files/SP_MCDA.pdf (Accessed 29 May 2016).

Sadoddin, A., Letcher, R. A., Jakeman, A. J., Croke, B., and Newham, L. T. H. (2009). "Bayesian Network Modelling for assessing the biophysical and
socio-economic impacts of dryland salinity management,” in *18th World Imacs Congress and Modsim09 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation: Interfacing Modelling and Simulation with Mathematical and Computational Sciences* (Cairns, QLD), 3273–3279.

Sadok, W., Angevin, F., Bergez, J. E., Bockstaller, C., Colomb, B., Guichard, L., et al. (2008). Ex ante assessment of the sustainability of alternative cropping systems: implications for using multi-criteria decision-aid methods. *A review. Agron. Sustainable Dev.* 28, 163–174. doi: 10.1051/agro:2007043

Sadok, W., Angevin, F., Bergez, J. E., Bockstaller, C., Colomb, B., Guichard, L., et al. (2009). MASC, a qualitative multi-attribute decision model for ex ante assessment of the sustainability of cropping systems. *Agron. Sustainable Dev.* 29, 447–461. doi: 10.1051/agro/2009006

Sagoff, M. (1988). *The Economy of the Earth*. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sagoff, M. (2005). The Catskills parable: a billion dollar misunderstanding. PERC Reports 23. Available online at: http://www.perc.org/articles/catskills-parable (Accessed 29 May 2016).

Sagoff, M. (2007). *The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law and the Environment, 2nd Edn*. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Salisbury, R. B. (2012). Engaging with soil, past and present. *J. Mater. Cult.* 17, 23–41. doi: 10.1177/1359183511432990

Salles, J.-M. (2012). Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: why put economic values on Nature? *C. R. Biol.* 334, 469–482. doi: 10.1016/j.crvi.2011.03.008

Sanchez-Canales, M., Lopez Benito, A., Passuello, A., Terrado, M., Ziv, G., Acuna, V., et al. (2012). Sensitivity analysis of ecosystem service valuation in a Mediterranean watershed. *Sci. Total Environ.* 440, 140–153. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.07.071

Sandbrook, C. G., and Burgess, N. D. (2015). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: not all positive. *Ecosyst. Serv.* 12, 29–29. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.006

Sandelin, B., Trautwein, H.-M., and Wundrak, R. (2014). *A Short History of Economic Thought*. Milton Park, UK: Routledge.

Sandel, M. (2012). *What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of markets*. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Santra, P., Das, B. S., and Chakravarty, D. (2011). Delineation of hydrologically similar units in a watershed based on fuzzy classification of soil hydraulic properties. *Hydrol. Process.* 25, 64–79. doi: 10.1002/hyp.7820

SCEP (1970). *Man's Impact on the Global Environment: Assessment and Recommendations for Action*. Report of the Study of Critical Environmental Problems. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Schenker, M. (2000). Exposures and health effects from inorganic agricultural dusts. *Environ. Health Perspect.* 108, 661–664. doi: 10.1289/ehp.00108s4661

Schlichting, E. (1972). Böden puffern Umwelteinflüsse ab (Soil buffering from environmental influences). *Umsch. Wiss. Tech.* 72, 50–52.

Schouten, A. J., Brussaard, L., de Ruiter, P. C., Siepel, H., and van Stralen, N. M. (1997). *An Indicator System for Life Support Functions of the Soil in Relation to Biodiversity*. Bilthoven: Rijskinstituut voor volksgezonheid en milieu.

Schroeder, D., and Lamp, J. (1976). Prinzipein der Aufstellung von Boden klassifikationssystemen (Principles for construction of soil classification systems) *Z. Pflanzenernaehrung und Bodenkunde* 5, 617–630.

Schulte, R. P. O., Creamer, R. E., Donnellan, T., Farrelly, N., Fealy, R., O'Donoghue, C., et al. (2014). Functional land management: a framework for managing soil-based ecosystem services for the sustainable intensification of agriculture. *Environ. Sci. Policy* 38, 45–58. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.10.002

Schwenk, W. S., Donovan, T. M., Keeton, W. S., and Nunery, J. S. (2012). Carbon storage, timber production, and biodiversity: comparing ecosystem services with multi-criteria decision analysis. *Ecol. Appl.* 22, 1612–1627. doi: 10.1890/11-0864.1

Semenov, A. V., Pereira e Silva, M. C., Salles, J. F., Schmitt, H., and van Elsas, J. D. (2014). Quantitative assessment of soil functioning across a representative range of Dutch soils. *Ecol. Indic.* 39, 88–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.009

Sener, B., Suzen, M. L., and Doyuran, V. (2006). Landfill site selection by using geographic information systems. *Environ. Geol.* 49, 376–388. doi: 10.1007/s00254-005-0075-2

Sepúlveda, M., Rousseliere, H., Val Elslande, E., Arriaza, B., Standen, V., Santoro, C. M., et al. (2014). Study of color pigments associated to archaic chinchorro mummies and grave goods in Northern Chile (7000–3500 B. P.). *Herit. Sci.* 2, 7. doi: 10.1186/2050-7445-2-7

Setala, H., Bardgett, R. D., Birkhofer, K., Brady, M., Byrne, L., de Ruiter, P. C., et al. (2014). Urban and agricultural soils: conflicts and trade-offs in the optimization of ecosystem services. *Urban Ecos.* 17, 239–253. doi: 10.1007/s11252-013-0311-6

Setten, G., Stenseke, M., and Moen, J. (2012). Ecosystem services and landscape management: three challenges and one plea. *Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecos. Serv. Manage.* 8, 305–312. doi: 10.1080/21513732.2012.722127

Shackleton, C. M., Ruwanza, S., Sinasson Sanni, G. K., Bennett, S., De Lacy, P., Modipa, R., et al. (2016). Unpacking pandora's box: understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing. *Ecosystems.* 19, 587–600. doi: 10.1007/s10021-015-9952-z

Shapiro, J., and Bäldi, A. (2014). Accurate accounting: how to balance ecosystem services and disservices. *Ecosyst. Serv.* 7, 201–202. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.01.002

Silvertown, J. (2015). Have ecosystem services been oversold? *Trends Ecol. Evol.* 30, 641–648. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.007

Simonson, R. W. (1966). Shifts in the usefulness of soil resources in the USA. *Agriculture* 23, 11–15.

Simpson, R. D. (2011). *The "Ecosystem Service Framework": A critical Assessment*. Nairobi: The United Nations Environment Programme.

Simpson, R. D., and Christensen, N. L. (1997). *Ecosystem Function and Human Activities*. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall, International Thomson Publishing.

Smith, A. (1976) (reprinted 1977). *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations*. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Söderqvist, T., Brinkhoff, P., Norberg, T., Rosén, L., Back, P.-E., and Norrman, J. (2015). Cost-benefit analysis as a part of sustainability assessment of remediation alternatives for contaminated land. *J. Environ. Manage.* 157, 267–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.024

Sojka, R. E., and Upchurch, D. R. (1999). Reservations regarding the soil quality concept. *Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.* 63, 1039–1054. doi: 10.2136/sssaaj1999.6351039x

Song, X.-Z., Zhao, C.-X., Wang, X.-L., and Li, J. (2009). Study of nitrate leaching and nitrogen fate under intensive vegetable production pattern in northern China. *C. R. Biol.* 332, 385–392. doi: 10.1016/j.crvi.2008.11.005

Spangenberg, J. H., Görg, C., Truong, D. T., Tekken, V., Bustamante, J. V., and Settele, J. (2014). Provision of ecosystem services is determined by human agency, not ecosystem functions. Four case studies. *Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage.* 10, 40–53. doi: 10.1080/21513732.2014.884166

Spash, C. L. (2010). The Brave New World of carbon trading. *New Pol. Econ.* 15, 169–195. doi: 10.1080/13563460903556049

Staubach, S. (2005). *Clay: The History and Evolution of Humankind's Relationship with Earth's Most Primal Element*. New York, NY: Berkley Books.

Steinnes, E. (2009). Soils and geomedicine. *Environ. Geochem. Health* 31, 523–535. doi: 10.1007/s10653-009-9257-2

Stiglat, K. (2012). Aus der Frühzeit des Betonbaus. *Bautechnik* 89, 484–491. doi: 10.1002/bate.201201549

Stiglitz, J. E., and Greenwald, B. C. (1986). Externalities in economies with imperfect information and incomplete markets. *Q. J. Econ.* 101, 229–264. doi: 10.2307/1891114

Strivelli, R. A., Krzic, M., Crowley, C., Dyanatkar, S., Bomke, A. A., Simard, S. W., et al. (2011). Integration of problem-based learning and web-based multimedia to enhance a soil management course. *J. Nat. Res. Life Sci. Educ.* 40, 215–223. doi: 10.4195/jnrlse.2010.0032n

Sullivan, S. (2013). Banking nature? The spectacular financialisation of environmental conservation. *Antipode* 45, 198–217. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.00989.x

Sun, L., Lu, W., Yang, Q., Delgado Martin, J., and Li, D. (2013). Ecological compensation estimation of soil and water conservation based on cost-benefit analysis. *Water Res. Manage.* 27, 2709–2727. doi: 10.1007/s11269-013-0268-5

Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. *Ethics* 115, 351–385. doi: 10.1086/426308

Sunstein, C. R., and Rowell, A. (2007). On discounting regulatory benefits: Risk, money, and Intergenerational equity. *Univ. Chic. Law Rev.* 74, 171–208.

Taalab, K., Corstanje, R., Zawadzka, J., Mayr, T., Whelan, M. J., Hannam, J. A., et al. (2015). On the application of bayesian networks in digital soil mapping. *Geoderma* 259/260, 134–148. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.05.014

Takeuchi, K. (2003). *Satoyama: The Traditional Rural Landscape of Japan*. Tokyo: Springer.
Tancoigne, E., Barbier, M., Cointet, J.-P., and Richard, G. (2013). *Les Services Écosystémiques Dans la Littérature Scientifique: Démarche D'exploration et Résultats D'analyse. Rapport D'étude Pour la Phase D'exploration du Métaprogramme EcoServ.* Paris: INRA.

Tardieu, L., Roussel, S., Thompson, J. D., Labarraque, D., and Salles, J.-M. (2015). Combining direct and indirect impacts to assess ecosystem service loss due to infrastructure construction. *J. Environ. Manage.* 152, 145-157. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.034

Tassin, J. (2012). Is an agrosystem an ecosystem? *Cah. Agric.* 21, 57-63. doi: 10.1684/agr.2012.0541

Telles, T. S., Falci Dechen, S. C., Antonio de Souza, L. G., and Guimaraes, M. D. F. (2013). Valuation and assessment of soil erosion costs. *Sci. Agric.* 70, 209-216. doi: 10.1590/S0103-90162013000300010

Tengberg, A., Fredholm, S., Eliasson, I., Knez, I., Saltzman, K., and Wetterberg, O. (2012). Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: assessment of heritage values and identity. *Ecosyst. Serv.* 2, 14-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.006

Teshome, A., de Graaff, J., and Stroosnijder, L. (2014). Evaluation of soil and water conservation practices in the north-western Ethiopian highlands using multi-criteria analysis. *Front. Environ. Sci.* 2:60. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2014.00060

Thomsen, M., Faber, J. H., and Sorensen, P. B. (2012). Soil ecosystem health and services - Evaluation of ecological indicators susceptible to chemical stressors. *Ecol. Indic.* 16, 67-75. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.05.012

Toman, M. (1998). Why not to calculate the value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. *Ecol. Econ.* 25, 57-60. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00017-2

Troldborg, M., Aalders, I., Towers, W., Hallett, P. D., McKenzie, B. M., Bengough, A. G., et al. (2013). Application of bayesian belief networks to quantify and map areas at risk to soil threats: using soil compaction as an example. *Soil Tillage Res.* 132, 56-68. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2013.05.005

Tsonkova, P., Böhm, C., Quinkenstein, A., and Freese, D. (2015). Application of partial order ranking to identify enhancement potentials for the provision of selected ecosystem services by different land use strategies. *Agric. Syst.* 135, 112-121. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.01.002

Turner, K. G., Anderson, S., Gonzales-Chang, M., Costanza, R., Courville, S., Dalgaard, T., et al. (2016). A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration. *Ecol. Modell.* 319, 190-207. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.07.017

Turner, R. K., and Daily, G. C. (2008). The ecosystem services framework and natural capital conservation. *Environ. Res. Econ.* 39, 25-35. doi: 10.1007/s10640-007-9176-6

Tzilivakis, J., Lewis, K. A., and Williamson, A. R. (2005). A prototype framework for assessing risks to soil functions. *Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.* 25, 181-195. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2004.02.003

Ungaro, F., Calzolari, C., Pistocchi, A., and Malucelli, F. (2014a). Modelling the impact of increasing soil sealing on runoff coefficients at regional scale: a hydropedological approach. *J. Hydrol. Hydromech.* 62, 33-42. doi: 10.2478/johh-2014

Ungaro, F., Zasada, I., and Piorr, A. (2014b). Mapping landscape services, spatial synergies and trade-offs. A case study using variogram models and geostatistical simulations in an agrarian landscape in North-East Germany. *Ecol. Indic.* 46, 367-378. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.06.039

Valentin, C., and Bresson, L. M. (1992). Morphology, genesis and classification of surface crusts in loamy and sandy soils. *Geoderma* 55, 225-245. doi: 10.1016/0016-7061(92)90085-L

van Eekeren, N., de Boer, H., Hanegraaf, M., Bokhorst, J., Nierop, D., Bloem, J., et al. (2010). Ecosystem services in grassland associated with biotic and abiotic soil parameters. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* 42, 1491-1504. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.05.016

van Wensem, J. (2013). Use of the ecosystem services concept in landscape management in the Netherlands. *Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag.* 9, 237-242. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1391

van Wezel, A. P., Franken, R. O. G., Drissen, E., Versluijs, K. C. W., and van den Berg, R. (2008). Societal cost-benefit analysis for soil remediation in The Netherlands. *Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag.* 4, 61-74. doi: 10.1897/IEAM_2007-034.1

van Wilgen, B. W., Cowling, R. M., and Burgers, C. J. (1996). Valuation of ecosystem services. *Bioscience* 46, 184-189. doi: 10.2307/1312739

van Wijnen, H. J., Rutgers, M., Schouten, A. J., Mulder, C., de Zwart, D., and Breure, A. M. (2012). How to calculate the spatial distribution of ecosystem services - Natural attenuation as example from The Netherlands. *Sci. Total Environ.* 415, 49-55. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.058

Várallyay, G. (1987). *A Talaj Vizgazdálkodása (Soil Water Management)*. Budapest: MTA Doktori Értekezés.

Várallyay, G. (1989). "Land evaluation in Hungary - Scientific problems, practical applications," in *Land Qualities in Space and Time, Symposium Organized by the International Society of Soil Science*, eds J. Bouma and A. K. Bregt (Wageningen: Pudoc), 241-252.

Vatn, A. (2000). The environment as a commodity. *Environ. Values* 9, 493-509. doi: 10.3197/096327100129342173

Vatn, A., and Bromley, D. W. (1994). Choices without prices without apologies. *J. Environ. Econ. Manage.* 26, 129-148. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1994.1008

Veblen, T. (1923). *Absentee Ownership and Buesiness Enterprise in Recent Times* The Case of America. New York, NY: B. W. Huebsch.

Vejre, H., Vesterager, J. P., Andersen, P. S., Olafsson, A. S., Brandt, J., and Dalgaard, T. (2015). Does cadastral division of area-based ecosystem services obstruct comprehensive management? *Ecol. Model.* 295, 176-187. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.09.027

Veronesi, F., Corstanje, R., and Mayr, T. (2014). Landscape scale estimation of soil carbon stock using 3D modelling. *Sci. Total Environ.* 487, 578-586. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.02.061

Vignola, R., Koellner, T., Scholz, R. W., and McDaniels, T. L. (2010). Decision-making by farmers regarding ecosystem services: factors affecting soil conservation efforts in Costa Rica. *Land Use Policy* 27, 1132-1142. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.03.003

Villa, F., Bagstad, K. J., Voigt, B., Johnson, G. W., Athanasiadis, I. N., and Balbi, S. (2014). The misconception of ecosystem disservices: how a catchy term may yield the wrong messages for science and society. *Ecosyst. Serv.* 10, 52-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.003

Vittoria, L. M., and Goldberg, F. (1975). Le funzioni del suolo nella biosfera (The functions of the soil in the biosphere). *Rilancio Agricolo Veterinario Zootecnico* 7, 22-23.

Volchko, Y., Norrman, J., Bergknut, M., Rosen, L., and Soderqvist, T. (2013). Incorporating the soil function concept into sustainability appraisal of remediation alternatives. *J. Environ. Manage.* 129, 367-376. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.07.025

Volchko, Y., Norrman, J., Rosen, L., Bergknut, M., Josefsson, S., Soderqvist, T., et al. (2014). Using soil function evaluation in multi-criteria decision analysis for sustainability appraisal of remediation alternatives. *Sci. Total Environ.* 485, 785-791. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.087

Vučetich, J. A., Bruskotter, J. T., and Nelson, M. P. (2015). Evaluating whether nature's intrinsic value is an axiom of or anathema to conservation. *Conserv. Biol.* 29, 321-332. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12464

Wagg, C., Bender, S. F., Widmer, F., and van der Heijden, M. G. A. (2014). Soil biodiversity and soil community composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.* 111, 5266-5270. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320054111

Wallace, K. J. (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. *Biol. Conserv.* 139, 235-246. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.015

Wall, D. H. (2012). *Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services*. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Wall, D. H., Bardgett, R. D., Covich, A. P., and Snelgrove, P. V. R. (2004). "The need for understanding how biodiversity and ecosystem functioning affect ecosystem services in soils and sediments," in *Sustaining Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Soils and Sediments*, eds D. H. Wall (Washington, DC: Island Press), 1-12.

Wall, D. H., and Nielsen, U. N. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: Is it the same below ground? *Nat. Educ. Knowl.* 3, 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.09.027

Wall, D. H., and Virginia, R. A. (2000). "The world beneath our feet: Soil biodiversity and ecosystem functioning," in *Nature and Human Society: The Ques for a Sustainable World*, eds P. R. Raven and T. Williams (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council), 225-241.

Walter, C., Bispo, A., Chenu, C., Langlais-Hesse, A., and Schwartz, C. (2015). "Les services écosystémiques des sols: Du concept à sa valorisation," in *Agriculture et
Foncier - Concurrences entre Usages des sols et entre Usagers des sols Agricoles: La Question Foncière Renouvelée, ed C. Demeter (Paris: Cahier Demeter), 51-68.

Wander, M. M., and Drinkwater, L. E. (2000). Fostering soil stewardship through soil quality assessment. *Appl. Soil Ecol.* 15, 61-73. doi: 10.1016/S0929-1393(00)00072-X

Warkentin, B. P., and Fletcher, H. F. (1977). "Soil quality for intensive agriculture," in *International Seminar on Soil Environment and Fertility Management in Intensive Agriculture: Society for Science of Soil and Manure* (Tokyo: National Institute of Agricultural Science), 594-598.

Wasson, J. R., McLeod, D. M., Bastian, C. T., and Rashford, B. S. (2013). The effects of environmental amenities on agricultural land values. *Land Econ.* 89, 466-478. doi: 10.3368/le.m93.466

Wegner, G., and Pascual, U. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: a multidisciplinary critique. *Global Environ. Change Hum. Policy Dimens.* 21, 492-504. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.008

Weikard, H.-P., and Hein, L. (2011). Efficient versus sustainable livestock grazing in the Sahel. *J. Agric. Eco.* 62, 153-171. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00275.x

Weisbrod, B. (1964). Collective-consumption services of individual-consumption goods. *Q. J. Eco.* 78, 471-477. doi: 10.2307/1879478

Wellington, E. M. H., Boxall, A. B. A., Cross, P., Feil, E. J., Gaze, W. H., Hawkey, P. M., et al. (2013). The role of the natural environment in the emergence of antibiotic resistance in Gram-negative bacteria. *Lancet Infect. Dis.* 13, 155-165. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)03171-1

Wells, E. C. (2006). "Cultural soilscapes," in *Functions of Soils for Human Societies and The Environment*, eds E. Frossard, W. E. H. Blum and B. P. Warkentin (London: The Geological Society of London), 125-132.

Westman, W. E. (1977). How much are nature's services worth. *Science* 197, 960-964. doi: 10.1126/science.197.4307.960

Willemen, L., Veldkamp, A., Verburg, P. H., Hein, L., and Leemans, R. (2012). A multi-scale modelling approach for analysing landscape service dynamics. *J. Environ. Manage.* 100, 86-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.01.022

Williams, A., and Hedlund, K. (2013). Indicators of soil ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable fields along a gradient of landscape heterogeneity in southern Sweden. *Appl. Soil Ecol.* 65, 1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2012.12.019

Winthrop, R. H. (2014). The strange case of cultural services: limits of the ecosystem services paradigm. *Ecol. Econ.* 108, 208-214. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.005

Wissen Hayek, U., Teich, M., Klein, T. M., and Grêt-Regamey, A. (2016). Bringing ecosystem services indicators into spatial planning practice: lessons from

collaborative development of a web-based visualization platform. *Ecol. Indic.* 61, 90-99. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.035

Wittemyer, G., Northrup, J. M., Blanc, J., Douglas-Hamilton, I., Omondi, P., and Burnham, K. P. (2014). Illegal killing for ivory drives global decline in African elephants. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.* 111, 13117-13121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1403984111

Wollman, N., (ed.) (1962). *The Value of Water in Alternative Uses, with Special Application to Water Use in the San Juan and Rio Grande Basins of New Mexico*. Albuquerque, NM: The University of New Mexico Press.

Wösten, J. H. M., Schuren, C. H. J. E., Bouma, J., and Stein, A. (1990). Comparing four methods to generate soil hydraulic functions in terms of their effect on simulated soil water budgets. *Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.* 54, 827-832.

Xiong, X., Grunwald, S., Myers, D. B., Kim, J., Harris, W. G., and Bliznyuk, N. (2015). Assessing uncertainty in soil organic carbon modeling across a highly heterogeneous landscape. *Geoderma* 251, 105-116. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.03.028

Yaalon, D. H., and Arnold, R. W. (2000). Attitudes toward soils and their societal relevance: then and now. *Soil Sci.* 165, 5-12. doi: 10.1097/00010694-200001000-00003

Zhang, W., Ricketts, T. H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., and Swinton, S. M. (2007). Ecosystem services and disservices to agriculture. *Ecol. Econ.* 64, 253-260. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024

Zhang, Y., Holzapfel, C., and Yuan, X. (2013). "Scale dependent ecosystem service," in *Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes*, eds S. Wratten, H. Sandhu, R. Cullen, and R. Costanza (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 107-121.

Zimmerman, M. J. (2015). "Intrinsic vs. extrinsic value," in *The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy*, ed E. N. Zalta (New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell). Available online at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/ (Accessed 29 May 2016).

**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2016 Baveye, Baveye and Gowdy. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.