# Advancing urban soil health: challenges, knowledge gaps, and future research perspectives

Michelangelo Vuono, Domenico Paolo Di Lonardo, Christophe Schwartz,

Fabio Terribile

► To cite this version:

Michelangelo Vuono, Domenico Paolo Di Lonardo, Christophe Schwartz, Fabio Terribile. Advancing urban soil health: challenges, knowledge gaps, and future research perspectives. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2026, 266, pp.105534. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105534. hal-05514891

HAL Id: hal-05514891

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05514891v1

Submitted on 17 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## Review Article

# Advancing urban soil health: challenges, knowledge gaps, and future research perspectives

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Michelangelo Vuono<sup>a, c, 1</sup>, Domenico Paolo Di Lonardo<sup>a, *, 1</sup>, Christophe Schwartz<sup>b</sup>, Fabio Terribile<sup>c, d</sup>

## HIGHLIGHTS

* Urban soils are under-researched compared to agricultural soils near cities.

* Studies focus on topsoil chemistry, ignoring deeper, physical, and biological aspects.

* Urban soil health studies are uneven and rarely examine links to human health.

* Linking soil experts with urban planners helps guide sustainable city development.

* Balanced soil health metrics are key to urban sustainability strategies.

## ARTICLE INFO

### Keywords:

Systematic literature review

Urban green areas

Soil ecosystem services

Soil properties

Sustainability

Urban planning

## ABSTRACT

Urbanization is projected to surpass 65% of the global population by 2050 and urban soils remain an overlooked yet crucial component for a sustainable development.

Here we present an analysis of the current state of research on urban soil health, focusing specifically on soils embedded within strictly urban environments (urban-affected soils).

Based on scientific literature review, this study systematically investigates 63 scientific papers published between 2008 and early 2025, examining various aspects of soil health research in urban environment including geographical distribution, land use, sampling depths, and soil health indicators. The results indicate a growing interest in urban soil health, particularly in recent years. The prevalence of research on this topic in specific regions of the world may be the result of the distribution of metropolitan areas, with the consequent enhance of awareness and importance of soil health in those regions.

The emphasis on chemical properties, particularly soil contamination, in the literature is consistent with historical trends, while the limited attention given to physical and biological properties calls for a more balanced approach. Ecosystem services, despite their recognized importance, are underutilized, urging a deeper exploration of specific services that contribute directly to human health. Sampling depth at soil profile scale emerged as a crucial factor, with a significant proportion of studies limited to the topsoil at depths of 20 cm or less. Considering the correlation between soil depth and ecosystem services, the findings emphasize the need for future research to explore greater sampling depths for a more comprehensive understanding of urban soil health.

Despite the growing interest in the field, urban soil health research remains shallow, both literally and conceptually. This work highlights the need for stronger collaboration between soil scientists and urban stakeholders, such as policymakers, planners, and the citizens. Bridging this communication gap will help shape research agendas and policies that address urban challenges, inform planning, and promote sustainable development.

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Soil Biology Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Université de Lorraine, INRAE, LSE, F-54000 Nancy, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Interdepartmental Research Centre on the “Earth Critical Zone”, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Università 100, Portici, 80055 Naples, Italy</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> Department of Agriculture, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Università 100, Portici, 80055 Naples, Italy</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: paolo.dilonardo@wur.nl (D.P. Di Lonardo).</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ These authors contributed equally to this work.</footnote>
# 1. Introduction

## 1.1. Urban soil health: challenges and opportunities

In the 1990s, urban soils were not yet a pedological object attracting the curiosity of scientists and city planners – far from it! At the time, they were often described as “non-soil,” materials of little interest from a pedological perspective, serving merely as substrates for human activity rather than as potentially fertile media for biodiversity (Craul, 1992). However, with the rise of sustainable development, urban soil science has gradually gained legitimacy and importance at local, national, European, and global scales. Over the last thirty years, this field has become essential for understanding the great diversity of urban soils (Morel et al., 2005), thereby enabling better integration of soil health into urban planning strategies.

Urban environments host a diverse range of soils within limited areas, marked by significant spatial heterogeneity and strong human influence. Unlike natural ecosystems, urban soils often lack spatial logic, combining deeply degraded, heavily modified, and minimally altered pseudo-natural soils (Effland & Pouyat, 1997; Morel et al., 2015). This variability derives from the diverse and dynamic land-use activities in cities and the frequent changes in land-use purposes along anthro- posequences (Libessart et al., 2022; Norra & Stuben, 2003).

Urban soils are often composed of highly altered and manipulated materials, described as artefacts or technic materials (El Khalil et al., 2008; Pouyat et al., 2020). These soils display pronounced heterogeneity at both vertical and horizontal scales, influencing their physical, chemical, and biological properties (Craul, 1992; Morel et al., 2005). Common features include coarse texture, high bulk density, alkaline pH, and frequent contamination from human activities such as industrial emissions and traffic pollutants (Burghardt et al., 2015; Cornu et al., 2021; El Khalil et al., 2013; Joimel et al., 2016). Consequently, they typically exhibit low physical and chemical fertility, though some are engineered to support plant growth and biomass production, as in gar- dens, green roofs, and constructed Technosols (Schwartz et al., 1999; Séré et al., 2008; WRB-FAO, 2015).

Urban green areas, parks, green belts, urban agriculture plots, and other vegetated spaces, are the soils closest to citizens and yet para- doxically among the least studied. Most knowledge on soil health (SH) indicators derives from agricultural contexts, leaving urban environ- ments underrepresented (Sapkota et al., 2021). Assessing soil health in urban contexts differs fundamentally from agricultural or grassland soils, which are generally more homogeneous and managed to support multiple ecosystem services, with production playing a prominent role. In urban soils, production is typically not a concern, yet many other ecosystem services, such as climate and water regulation, remain highly important. These soils therefore require indicators that capture their pronounced spatial heterogeneity, diverse origins, and vulnerability to human disturbances. According to the new EU soil law proposal Soil Monitoring and Resilience (Soil Monitoring Law) (COM/2023/416 final), SH is defined as “the physical, chemical, and biological condition of the soil determining its capacity to function as a vital living system and to provide ecosystem services.” Well-maintained urban soils can indeed provide ecosystem services (ESs) for human well-being compa- rable to those of agricultural and forest soils (Anne et al., 2018), thereby contributing to biodiversity and global health.

To comprehend the complexity of urban soils in the context of sus- tainable development requires close attention to urban management practices and their effects on SH indicators, as well as recognition of their ecological value and the preservation of their functions. Moreover, assessments must account for urban fragmentation, defined as the isolation of soil patches caused by urbanization and sealing, which negatively affects both soil health and soil functionalities (Seifollahi- Aghmiuni et al., 2022; Vieillard et al., 2024).

## 1.2. Importance of urban soil health

Worldwide, the urban population is projected to surpass 65 % of the total population by 2050 (United Nations, 2018). In the most developed countries, this figure will be notably higher, with Europe expected to increase from the current 73 % to 80 % (U.N., 2018). The escalation of urbanization poses a threat to global sustainable development, impacting both developed regions and those undergoing accelerated urbani- zation processes (Pauchard et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2023). This trend brings significant environmental challenges, particularly affecting soils. Therefore, assessing and enhancing urban SH has become critical for global health and sustainable urban planning.

Urban soil management practices should account for the unique conditions of these systems, adapting techniques from agriculture and forestry to the urban context. Practices such as soil engineering (e.g., construction of soils from wastes and by-products of urban activities) and de-sealing can restore or enhance ecological functions, improving soils' capacity to provide ecosystem services (Fabbri et al., 2021).

Beyond ecosystem functioning, urban plant and soil microbiomes interact directly with human health. Studies show that exposure to diverse environmental microbiota can influence immune regulation and reduce risks of inflammatory disease (Liddicoat et al., 2020; Mills et al., 2020). Recognizing these intertwined relationships between urban soils, vegetation, and human well-being underscores the broader societal value of SH.

Despite the growing scientific interest, significant gaps remain in understanding how urbanization affects SH. This review specifically addresses soils embedded within strictly urban environments (urban- affected soils), examining their diversity, the challenges they face, and the knowledge gaps that require further study. Through a systematic approach, we aim to trace the trajectory of SH research in urban envi- ronments and highlight avenues for future research.

# 2. Materials and methods

## 2.1. Literature search and selecting criteria

We performed a literature search to gain an overview of soil health in urban ecosystems. The search used the terms of “soil health” and “urban” into the title, abstract, and keywords of the literature gathered via the Web Of Science (WOS) database. In addition, we focus our search on articles that were exclusively written in English, between 1980 and 2025 in peer-reviewed journals. We excluded meeting abstracts, con- ference reviews and conference proceedings.

The bibliometric analysis performed in this study followed the pro- tocol established by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) as defined by Pullin et al. (2022). After reading all papers, we applied an additional criteria aiming to select only studies focusing on urban soils not intended for standard agricultural production. We applied this criterion because, after an initial analysis, we noticed that most of the papers focused on SH evaluation in standard agricultural farms located near urban areas (periurban environment). Including these papers would have created an artifact when analysing soil health in urban soils. Additionally, the management practices associated with these soils closely resemble those of traditional agricultural soils, and the existing literature already offers a plethora of information on urban agriculture (Azunre et al., 2019; Bidar et al., 2020; De Bon et al., 2009; Orsini et al., 2013; Quon, 1999; Tinsley, 2003). Consequently, we determined that these “agriculture” scenarios were misleading for evaluating SH in urban soils.

As outcome of this criteria, our selection included studies conducted in open fields or greenhouses, studies focusing on stakeholder engage- ment, studies connection soil health and water management and green infrastructure.
## 2.2. Screening and data analysis

Our bibliometric search identified a total of 217 articles. The procedure for the subsequent selection is illustrated in Fig. 1. After applying the exclusion criteria, 63 articles were included.

To understand the state of research on SH in urban contexts and explore the evolution of the theme, we summarize the information contained in the scientific papers, focusing on the following characteristics: geographic origin of the study, land use and vegetation type, main topic explored, and the sampling depth.

For the criterion land use, we settled six categories, including “park” for urban parks; “roadside” for small plots of land at the edges of roads and green belts; “residential” for soils of occupied, abandoned, or demolished houses; “forest” for urban forests; “industrial” for soils of abandoned, demolished or in activity industries; and “open space” such as sports fields, playgrounds, schools, and university campuses. For vegetation cover, the specified categories were “grass”, “shrub”, and “tree”. Sampling depth was also recorded and eventually divided into categories per depth if specified. Additionally, the articles were grouped according to five main topics, namely “Soil pollution and remediation”; “Ecosystem services”; “Water management and green infrastructures”; “Soil Health assessment”; and “Stakeholder surveys and policies”.

Subsequently, we summarised the following information on the indicators and properties reported in the publications: (i) soil chemical properties (such as pH, soil organic matter, electrical conductivity), (ii) biological properties (such as cumulative soil respiration and enzymatic activities), (iii) physical properties (such as soil porosity, hydrology, texture, and structure), (iv) ecosystem services (such as carbon storage

and greenhouses gases regulation), and (v) SH indexes (typically empirical multiparametric equations, as Shannon or Simpson indexes).

## 3. Overview of key findings and research focus

In our analysis, we focused on the publication dates and locations while gathering valuable insights on land use, vegetation, and sampling depth. We took a close look at the indicators, categorized them to uncover patterns, and grouped the articles by the main topic the authors addressed. Our goal was to understand the current state of knowledge and connect it with historical contexts. From the scientific literature on soil health in urban environments examined, we selected 63 key articles focused on green areas, forming the basis of this analysis.

The oldest article we found dates to 2008 (Shi et al., 2008), and the 78 % of the selected articles were published after 2021 (Fig. 2), highlighting the recent interest that the topic of urban soil health has garnered (Pouyat et al., 2020). This data aligns with Sellami & Terribile (2023)'s findings regarding the soil health in agricultural systems and suggests a growing acknowledgment of soil's significance within the scientific community.

Regarding the geographical origin of the papers included in this review which mentioned the geographical area (n = 61), approximately 38 % are from the American continent, followed by Asia with 33 %. Europe and Oceania contribute 23 % and 5 %, respectively. Notably, only one article originates from Africa, highlighting a gap in research from this region, as well as in Oceania. Regarding the European articles, 9 out of 14 were published after 2024, underlying once again the recent interest that the topic has raised. The trend just showed might be explained by the greater presence of metropolises in the American and Asian continents compared to their European and Oceanic counterparts (Ramos & Roca, 2015), as well as by higher awareness of soil health in these regions and comparatively lower research capacity or different priorities (e.g., food security) in developing countries.

When looking at the land use category (Table 1), open space were the most represented urban green ecosystems, appearing in 32 instances, followed by parks (26) and residential areas (23) among the 59 articles that specified the land use type. In terms of vegetation types, grass was the most studied with 48 instances, followed by trees (23) and shrubs (15).

Most of the selected articles comprise experimental studies or site characterizations with soil sample analyses. Sampling in urban contexts has widely been reported as complex due to soil disturbances (Downey et al., 2021; Galle et al., 2021). Urban soils often face compaction issues, exacerbated by the presence of obstacles (pipes, construction debris, or other infrastructure), complicating the data collection process (Downey et al., 2021; Galle et al., 2021; Howard et al., 2016). Moreover, space constraints make it difficult to bring in equipment or machinery to sample subsoils.

The distribution of sampling depths is shown in Fig. 3, revealing that out of 63 articles, 51 conducted sampling and/or specified the sampling depth. More than 70 % of them did not exceed a depth of 20 cm.

This is an interesting finding since ESs, which can be at the base of SH evaluation, are very much dependent by both topsoil and subsoil (Ellili-Bargaoui et al., 2021). For instance, in soil biological studies, it is common to focus on the first 10 cm, as this layer is often considered the most biologically active due to the higher concentration of root exudates, microbial activity, and organic matter (Fierer et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2009). However, while the first 10 cm are relevant for soil biological processes, focusing solely on this layer may neglect soil functions associated to deeper layers, such as water retention and carbon storage, which are also influenced by the subsoil layers (Lal, 2004). To this respect, the correlation between soil depth and ESs, as showed by Adhikari et al. (2022) and Greiner et al. (2017), accentuates the necessity of sampling beyond this threshold. This insight suggests a need for future research in urban contexts to expand sampling depths where feasible, accompanied by a description of the soil horizons of the

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Flowchart diagram depicting the article selection procedure (n represents the number of studies). After the initial search in WOS incorporating “soil health” and “urban”, 217 studies were identified. 63 studies were used in this review after applying the exclusion criteria.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Numbers of the selected articles grouped per year.</figcaption></figure>

territory. Such an increase can provide a detailed account of the ESs provided by urban soils, facilitate their quantification and make their evaluation more accurate. Notably, two authors (Seboko et al., 2021; Streeter & Schilling, 2018) collected samples at depths greater than 120 cm.

The parameters outlined in Table 2 highlight a dominant focus on chemical properties (76 %) as primary indicators for evaluating soil health across scientific studies. Physical properties are reported in 60 % of the papers, biological properties in 44 %, SH indexes in 37 %, and proxies of one or more ES in only 33 %, reflecting historical preferences for chemical attributes (Bünemann et al., 2018; Cornu et al., 2021).

The limited emphasis on biological and physical properties, observed in only 4 and 7 out of all the articles pre-2020 respectively, is particularly noteworthy. Physical properties (e.g., bulk density) are critical for assessing soil compaction and its susceptibility to urbanization-induced alterations, while biological attributes respond quickly to disturbances (Buzzard et al., 2021) and play a crucial role in understanding degradation and the soil's capacity to provide ESs. Interestingly, when properties are combined into a SH-related indexes, biological properties play a dominant role (last column of Table 2).

This imbalance highlights the need for research to focus more on physical and biological properties, without neglecting chemical characteristics, promoting a more holistic approach that includes these underrepresented attributes.

ESs connected to soil are also underrepresented, assessed in only 33 % of studies. Over 80 % focus exclusively on primary productivity and their proxies, such as NDVI, with no reference to modelling procedures. This limited scope reduces the transferability of findings and emphasizes the need for research to identify and quantify a broader range of ESs that directly contribute to human health, aligning with the growing recognition of urban soils' role in supporting well-being (Schwarz et al., 2022).

Regarding SH indexes, two main approaches emerge: 1) parametric equations focusing on specific biological aspects of the soil, such as nematodes and the application of biodiversity indices (i.e., Simpson and Shannon); 2) and holistic testing methods, such as the Cornell Soil Health Test (CSHT) (Schindelbeck et al., 2008), which evaluates a broader spectrum of soil properties, encompassing biological, chemical, and physical factors. Both approaches offer a more comprehensive assessment of soil health.

## 4. An insight on research topics and knowledge gaps

Building on this understanding of soil health indicators, ecosystem services, and SH indexes, we also examined how research is clustered

across topics (Fig. 4). The most represented topics are soil pollution and remediation (37 %) and soil health assessment (30 %), followed by ecosystem services (14 %), water management and green infrastructure (11 %), and stakeholder surveys and policies (8 %). In the following subsections, we discuss the approaches, outcomes, knowledge gaps, and the relationship between each of this topic and soil health. We excluded "Stakeholder surveys and policies" from the analysis due to the limited availability of information and the novelty of the topic. Nonetheless, in the last section "Future Perspectives and Conclusions", we highlighted the key insights gained from the articles within this category.

### 4.1. Soil pollution and remediation

#### Current knowledge

Soil pollution is a critical environmental challenge, particularly in urban areas where human activities introduce contaminants that threaten both soil and human health. Heavy metals and organic compounds remain the best-studied pollutants, long recognized for their capacity to compromise SH and reduce ESs (Pouyat et al., 2020). More recently a broader spectrum of contaminants, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), microplastics, PFAS, antibiotics and soil pathogens, has emerged, adding new complexity to the problem (Li et al., 2023; Sillo et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2024a).

The origin and distribution of pollutants in urban soils are closely tied to human activity and land-use history. Industrial processes, vehicular emissions and legacy activities such as historical manufacturing or waste mismanagement are major contributors (Sillo et al., 2024; Tóth et al., 2023). For example, roadside soils are typically enriched in Cd, Pb and Zn due to vehicle emissions, while soils near smelting and processing facilities often show elevated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations (Bandowe et al., 2021; Çomakli et al., 2018). Beyond these traditional contaminants, VOCs provide additional insight as both pollutants and indicators of microbial activity, heavy traffic or pre-1970 infrastructure often carrying persistent legacy pollutants such as Pb from lead-based paints (Libessart et al., 2022; Martin et al., 2023).

In response to soil degradation, increasing attention is given to nature-based solutions aimed at requalification, renaturation or ecological re-functionalisation of urban soils. Such approaches are already implemented in practice through soil engineering (soil construction) (Fabbri et al., 2021) and phytomanagement (Evangelou &
<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

Location, land-use and vegetation type of the selected articles. Where only the region, the country, or multiple countries are indicated, the authors did not specify the locations in more detail. “NA” indicates not available.

<table><caption>**Table 1 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Authors</th><th>Location</th><th>Land use and vegetation type</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Shi et al., 2008</td><td>Shenzhen, Guangdong, China</td><td>Parks and roadsides</td></tr><tr><td>Chen et al., 2015</td><td>Beijing, Beijing Municipality, China</td><td>Parks (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Harvey et al., 2016</td><td>Boolean, New South Wales, Australia</td><td>Residentials and open spaces (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Howard et al., 2016</td><td>Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A.</td><td>Parks, residential and industrial (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Rahman et al., 2016</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Sax et al., 2017</td><td>Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.</td><td>Open spaces (grass, shrubs, trees)</td></tr><tr><td>Çomakli et al., 2018</td><td>Erzurum, Eastern Anatolia, Turkey</td><td>Forest (trees)</td></tr><tr><td>Streeter & Schilling, 2018</td><td>Iowa, U.S.A.</td><td>Open spaces (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Wang et al., 2018</td><td>Shanghai, Shanghai Municipality, China</td><td>Parks</td></tr><tr><td>Bandowe et al., 2019</td><td>Jena, Thuringia, Germany</td><td>Open spaces (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Pleshakova et al., 2019</td><td>Stepnoe, Low Volga, Russia</td><td>Open spaces</td></tr><tr><td>Sefati et al., 2019</td><td>Ahvaz, Khuzestan, Iran</td><td>Parks and forest (grass, shrubs, trees)</td></tr><tr><td>Gurjar et al., 2020</td><td>New Delhi, New Delhi, India</td><td>Open spaces (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Yu et al., 2020</td><td>New York City, New York, U. S.A.</td><td>Roadsides (trees)</td></tr><tr><td>Bandowe et al., 2021</td><td>Almalyk, Tashkent Region, Uzbekistan</td><td>Industrial, open spaces (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Buzzard et al., 2021</td><td>Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.</td><td>Residentials (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Downey et al., 2021</td><td>New York City, New York, U. S.A.</td><td>Forest (trees)</td></tr><tr><td>Galle et al., 2021</td><td>Cambridge and Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.</td><td>Parks and roadsides (trees)</td></tr><tr><td>Pike et al., 2021</td><td>Highland Park, Illinois, U.S. A.</td><td>Forest (trees)</td></tr><tr><td>Sapkota et al., 2021</td><td>Lubbock, Texas, U.S.A.</td><td>Residentials (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Savanor et al., 2021</td><td>Mohindergarh and Narnaul, Haryana, India</td><td>Open spaces (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Seboko et al., 2021</td><td>Johannesburg Granite Dome, Gauteng, South Africa</td><td>Open spaces (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Gómez-sagasti et al., 2021</td><td>Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain</td><td>Parks (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Ward et al., 2021</td><td>New York City, New York, U. S.A.</td><td>Parks (grass, shrubs, trees)</td></tr><tr><td>Abu-Shanab et al., 2022</td><td>NA</td><td>Greenhouse (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Gómez-Brandón et al., 2022</td><td>Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain</td><td>Parks, open spaces, forest (grass, shrubs, trees)</td></tr><tr><td>Pease et al., 2022</td><td>Ames, Iowa, U.S.A.</td><td>Open spaces (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Schwarz et al., 2022</td><td>Los Angeles, California, U.S. A.</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Ahmad & Rizvi, 2023</td><td>Neom, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Bacco et al., 2023</td><td>Jersey City, New Jersey, U.S. A.</td><td>Park (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Banerjee et al., 2023</td><td>Bardhama, West Bengal, India</td><td>Forest (trees)</td></tr><tr><td>Braun et al., 2023</td><td>U.S.A.</td><td>Parks, Roadside, Open space, Residential (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Clos et al., 2023</td><td>Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A.</td><td>Roadside, Residential (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>de Matos et al., 2023</td><td>Barcarena, Para, Brazil</td><td>Residential, Open Space, Industrial (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Ding et al., 2023</td><td>China</td><td>Industrial, Residential, Open Space, Park (grass, shrub, tree)</td></tr><tr><td>Golia, 2023</td><td>Volos and Thessaloniki, Thessaly, Greece</td><td>Open Space (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Li et al., 2023</td><td>Ningbo, Zhejiang, China</td><td>Industrial, Residential, Open Space, Park, Forest (grass, shrub, tree)</td></tr><tr><td>Martin et al., 2023</td><td>Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand</td><td>Open spaces, forests (grass, shrubs, trees)</td></tr><tr><td>McGrath et al., 2023</td><td>Ontario, Canada</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Authors</th><th>Location</th><th>Land use and vegetation type</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Tessler et al., 2023</td><td>Cranbury, New Jersey, U.S.A.</td><td>Residentials (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Tóth et al., 2023</td><td>Budapest, Pest, Hungary</td><td>Forests, parks and open spaces (grass, shrubs, trees)</td></tr><tr><td>Wang et al., 2023</td><td>Yancheng, Jiangsu, China</td><td>Forests, parks and open spaces (grass, shrubs, trees)</td></tr><tr><td>Aguirre-Alberto & Jaramillo-López, 2024</td><td>Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico</td><td>Open space, Residential (grass, shrub, tree)</td></tr><tr><td>Anuradha, 2024</td><td>Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India</td><td>Industrial, Residential (grass, shrub, tree)</td></tr><tr><td>Burton et al., 2024</td><td>United Kingdom</td><td>Residential (grass, shrub)</td></tr><tr><td>Chou et al., 2024</td><td>Saint Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.</td><td>Parks, Residential, Open spaces (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Clos & Chrysochoou, 2024</td><td>Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A.</td><td>Parks, Roadside, Open space, Residential (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Hiura et al., 2024</td><td>Tomakomai, Hokkaido, Japan</td><td>Forest (trees)</td></tr><tr><td>Jordanova et al., 2024</td><td>Sofia, Sofia District, Bulgaria</td><td>Parks (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Korneykova et al., 2024</td><td>Murmansk, Murmansk</td><td>Industrial, Residential, Open spaces, Parks, Roadside (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>McDaniel et al., 2024</td><td>Iowa City, Iowa, U.S.A.</td><td>Industrial, Residential (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Pereira et al., 2024a</td><td>Vilnius, Vilnius District, Lithuania</td><td>Residential, Open spaces (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Pereira et al., 2024b</td><td>Vilnius, Vilnius District, Lithuania</td><td>Residential, Open spaces (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Rijk et al., 2024</td><td>Helsingborg, Scania, Sweden</td><td>Industrial, Residential (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Séré et al., 2024</td><td>France, Switzerland, Spain</td><td>Open spaces, Parks, Roadsides, Residential (grass, shrub, tree)</td></tr><tr><td>Sillo et al., 2024</td><td>Prato, Tuscany, Italy</td><td>Forest, Park (grass, tree)</td></tr><tr><td>Urbaniak et al., 2024</td><td>Łódź, Łódź, Poland</td><td>Open Space (grass, shrub, tree)</td></tr><tr><td>Zandybay et al., 2024</td><td>Astana, Aqmola, Kazakhstan</td><td>Residential, Open spaces, Industrial, Parks, Roadside (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Zhao et al., 2024a</td><td>Central Yunnan and Yangtze River Delta, Yunnan / Yangtze River Delta, China</td><td>Industrial, Residential, Open Spaces, Parks, Forest (grass, shrub, tree)</td></tr><tr><td>Zhao et al., 2024b</td><td>Perth, Western Australia, Australia</td><td>Open spaces, Parks (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Rompato et al., 2025</td><td>Florence, Tuscany, Italy</td><td>Open spaces (trees)</td></tr><tr><td>Samani et al., 2025</td><td>Tehran, Tehran District, Iran</td><td>Parks (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>Yee et al., 2025</td><td>Greater Baltimore, Metropolitan Region, Maryland, U.S.A.</td><td>Roadsides, Parks, Open spaces, Industrial (grass)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Deram, 2014). Phytoremediation in particular has been widely investigated as a cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternative, relying on metal-hyperaccumulating species, intercropping and microbial inoculation to degrade, stabilize or extract pollutants.

Yet, despite extensive research, this method has only rarely been translated into practice due to slow remediation rates, site-specific variability and high costs (Bacco et al., 2023; Gómez-sagasti et al., 2021; Yee et al., 2025).

Other approaches have been more directly applied. The “Scoop & Dump” method, for instance, which consists of breaking up compacted urban soils, incorporating compost and applying mulch annually, has been shown in real-world applications to improve soil structure, aeration and microbial activity over the long term (Sax et al., 2017). Similarly, soil amendments such as biochar and peat have demonstrated potential for contaminant immobilization and improvements in microbial activity, although sometimes at the expense of plant nutrient uptake (Rijk et al., 2024). Chemically modified diatomite has also produced promising results, significantly reducing the bioavailability of heavy metals and enhancing enzymatic activity in experimental contexts
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Sampling depth visualization of 51 articles that specified sampling depths. Streeter & Schilling (2018) and Seboko et al. (2021) sampled at depths greater than 120 cm, which was set as the threshold for data visualization in the graph. Pike et al. (2021) used probes at fixed depths, which is why their data are represented as lines rather than bars.</figcaption></figure>

(Samani et al., 2025).

## Research gaps

Although progress has been made in understanding pollution pathways and testing remediation techniques, several critical gaps remain. Chief among them is the lack of standardized indicators for SH. Current frameworks assess pollutant removal but do not adequately capture long-term soil functionality or the provision of ecosystem services, making it difficult to compare or evaluate remediation efforts across contexts (Gómez-sagasti et al., 2021).

Scaling up promising approaches is also a major challenge. While phytoremediation and microbe-assisted strategies are well studied, their slow rates, site-specific effectiveness and limited cost-efficiency prevent widespread application. Likewise, soil amendments such as biochar or diatomite show short-term promise but require further evaluation of long-term environmental effects, trade-offs for soil biota and plants, and economic feasibility. Hybrid methods that integrate physical, biological and chemical remediation have been suggested as a way forward but remain largely experimental (Séré et al., 2008).

Finally, emerging contaminants require greater attention. VOCs show potential as bioindicators of soil microbial activity, but their integration into monitoring frameworks remains incomplete. Similarly, the dynamics of antibiotic pollution, which differ regionally depending on both soil properties and anthropogenic inputs, are not yet well understood (Zhao et al., 2024a). Addressing these gaps will require interdisciplinary collaboration, bringing together soil scientists, agronomists, urban planners and policymakers to develop standardized, scalable and sustainable frameworks capable of tackling the complexity of urban soil pollution.

## 4.2. Soil health assessment

### Current knowledge

Studies on urban SH highlight the complexity of this dynamic system, which is shaped not only by ecological processes but also by its role in human well-being, particularly in public spaces such as parks, forests and green areas (Wang et al., 2018). One of the primary challenges in assessing SH is the high degree of spatial heterogeneity in urban soils, resulting from interactions between organic matter input, pollutant deposition and historical land-use change (Naylo et al., 2019; Pouyat et al., 2007; Gómez-Brandón et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2008; Streeter & Schilling, 2018). This variability is expressed in enzymatic activity, microbial composition, bulk density, nutrient availability and contamination levels across land uses, reflecting the complex and site-specific nature of urban soils (Joimel et al., 2016; Zandybay et al., 2024). Understanding these spatial patterns is therefore critical for effective

management and monitoring of SH, since they directly influence soil functioning and ecosystem services.

Microbial communities play a particularly important role as bioindicators of SH. Bacterial diversity tends to follow more consistent, land-use-dependent patterns (Naylo et al., 2019), while fungal communities are more variable and sensitive to changing soil conditions (Gómez-Brandón et al., 2022). In urban green spaces, microbial composition contributes significantly to soil fertility and nutrient cycling; for instance, urban park soils often harbour rich bacterial diversity with functional genes linked to nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur cycles (Wang et al., 2018). However, these communities can shift under anthropogenic stressors such as irrigation, fertilization or pesticide application, highlighting their dynamic responses to management practices (Sapkota et al., 2021). Soil fauna also serve as useful indicators: the pill bug (Armadillidium vulgare), for example, responds predictably to variations in organic matter, pH and moisture, while nematode and microbial communities in riparian soils are sensitive to heavy metal contamination, making them effective markers of pollution hotspots (Aguirre-Alberto & Jaramillo-López, 2024; Wang et al., 2023).

Soil compaction represents another major factor affecting urban SH. By reducing porosity, infiltration and gas exchange, compaction limits plant growth and microbial activity (Hiura et al., 2024; Pease et al., 2022; Rompato et al., 2025; Séré et al., 2008). Compacted soils in urban and periurban forests have been shown to reduce microbial multifunctionality, which correlates with lower tree richness and biomass accumulation, underlining the strong aboveground-belowground linkages in forested environments (Hiura et al., 2024). Remediation strategies, particularly the use of organic amendments such as municipal compost or chipped cork, have demonstrated the capacity to alleviate compaction, improving soil respiration, moisture retention and enzymatic activity. These interventions are already applied in practice and point to the potential of organic amendments to strengthen the resilience of urban soils against anthropogenic pressures (Hiura et al., 2024; Pease et al., 2022; Rompato et al., 2025; Séré et al., 2008).

In terms of assessment methodologies, multiple approaches have been developed, though they often yield contrasting results. The Cornell Soil Health Test (CSHT), for example, places greater emphasis on biological indicators, whereas the Improved Soil Environmental Quality Evaluation (ISEQE) model incorporates urban-specific factors such as compaction, contamination and soil sealing, making it more suitable for urban settings (Sefati et al., 2019). Recent efforts to design standardized SH scoring systems have proposed nine core soil functions, with reference frameworks built from empirical data collected across several European cities (Séré et al., 2024). In this study, relevant soil indicators were identified through field descriptions, in situ measurements, and
<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

Soil health parameters divided into chemical properties (including basic soil properties; soil contaminants are highlighted in bold), biological properties, physical properties, soil-plant proxies connected to one or more ecosystem services (proxies) and indicators spotted in the selected papers. Abbreviations: PAHs = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; MBC = microbial biomass carbon; MBN = microbial biomass nitrogen; H' = Shannon index; R' = Rarefied richness; D' = Simpson index.

<table><thead><tr><th>Paper</th><th>Chemical properties</th><th>Biological properties</th><th>Physical properties</th><th>Proxies of one or more Ecosystem services</th><th>Indexes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Shi et al., 2008</td><td>SOM; TN; AN; TP; AP; pH; EC</td><td>invertase; urease; acid phosphatase; catalase</td><td>Clay (&lt; 0.01 mm) content</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Chen et al., 2015</td><td>pH; SOM; TN; AP; EC; sodium adsorption rate; Bo; As; Cd; Cr; Cu; Pb; Zn</td><td>MBC; urease; alkaline phosphatase; invertase; dehydrogenase; catalase</td><td>Total porosity</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Harvey et al., 2016</td><td>Sb; As; Cd; Pb; Zn</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Howard et al., 2016</td><td>EC; pH</td><td></td><td>moisture content; penetrability; magnetic susceptibility</td><td></td><td>Anthropogenic map index</td></tr><tr><td>Rahman et al., 2016</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sax et al., 2017</td><td>AC; N; SOM; P; K; Fe; Mg; Mn; pH; Zn</td><td></td><td>bulk density; soil resistance; texture; available water holding capacity; aggregate stability</td><td></td><td>Cornell soil health test (CSHT)</td></tr><tr><td>Çomakli et al., 2018</td><td>Pb; Zn; Ni; Cu; Cr; Cd</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Streeter & Schilling, 2018</td><td>P; SOM; N; TC; C/N</td><td></td><td>texture</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Wang et al., 2018</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bandowe et al., 2019</td><td>∑29 PAHs; ∑15 oxygenated PAHs; inorganic C; SOC; TC</td><td>MBC; basal respiration</td><td></td><td>leaf area index; plant species richness, aboveground plant biomass</td><td>H'; D'; abundance-based coverage estimator index; Chao1 index inverse D'</td></tr><tr><td>Pleshakova et al., 2019</td><td>Cu; Zn; Pb; Cd; Cr; Ni</td><td>heterotrophic microorganisms; hydrocarbon-oxidizing microorganisms; iron-oxidizing microorganisms; dehydrogenase; catalase; peroxidase; invertase</td><td></td><td></td><td>Total contamination coefficient</td></tr><tr><td>Sefati et al., 2019</td><td>pH; EC; AP; K; CaCO3; sodium adsorption rate; soil salinity; exchangeable sodium percentage; SOM; AC; Pb; Cd; Ni; Fe; Zn; Cu; Mn</td><td></td><td>bulk density; aggregate stability; penetration resistance; Texture</td><td></td><td>Cornell soil health test; improved soil environmental quality evaluation</td></tr><tr><td>Gurjar et al., 2020</td><td>pH; EC; SOM; AN; AP; AK; sodium adsorption rate; residual sodium carbonate; Zn; Mn; Cu; Fe; Cr; Ni; Pb; Cd</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yu et al., 2020</td><td></td><td></td><td>soil moisture; soil temperature; light intensity</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bandowe et al., 2021</td><td>pH; SOM; ∑29 PAHs; ∑16 US-EPA PAHs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Buzzard et al., 2021</td><td>pH; EC; SOM; Gibbs free energy</td><td>soil microbial richness</td><td>soil temperature; soil volumetric water content; water holding capacity; bulk density</td><td></td><td>H'</td></tr><tr><td>Downey et al., 2021</td><td>total C content; carbon density</td><td></td><td>bulk density</td><td>carbon sequestration</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Galle et al., 2021</td><td>water-soluble organic C; water-soluble nitrate; solvita labile amino nitrogen; pH; P; K; TC; EC</td><td>solvita CO2 burst; active fungi; active bacteria</td><td>water stable aggregates; bulk density; soil luminance</td><td>NDVI; NDRE</td><td>Soil health score</td></tr><tr><td>Pike et al., 2021</td><td></td><td></td><td>soil compaction; soil moisture texture</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sapkota et al., 2021</td><td>pH; SOM; Soil Salinity; N; P; K; CEC</td><td>MBC; MBN; microbial abundance; microbial structure; MBC:MBN</td><td>texture</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Savanoor et al., 2021</td><td>pH; EC; SOM; CaCO3; cation exchange capacity; Zn; Cu; Cd; Cr; Pb; Ni; Co</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Seboko et al., 2021</td><td>SOM</td><td></td><td>bulk density</td><td>carbon sequestration</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
<table><caption>**Table 2 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Paper</th><th>Chemical properties</th><th>Biological properties</th><th>Physical properties</th><th>Proxies of one or more Ecosystem services</th><th>Indexes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gómez-sagasti et al., 2021</td><td>otal petroleum hydrocarbons C10-C40; total polychlorinated biphenyls; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons</td><td>β-glucosidase; β-glucosaminidase; arylsulfatase; acid phosphatase; L-Ala-aminopeptidase; L-Leu-aminopeptidase; basal respiration; substrate-induced respiration; substrate consumption activity</td><td></td><td>plant leaf measurements (e.g. biomass dry weight)</td><td>R'; Pielou's evenness; H'; overall enzyme activity</td></tr><tr><td>Ward et al., 2021</td><td>pH; TC; TN; C stocks</td><td>active microbial biomass</td><td>water holding capacity; bulk density; texture</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Abu-Shanab et al., 2022</td><td></td><td>mycelium growth rate; basal respiration</td><td></td><td>plant measurements (e.g. fresh weight; dry weight; shoot dry weight)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gómez-Brandón et al., 2022</td><td>pH; TN; TC; AN; AP; C/N</td><td>α-glucosidases; β-glucosidases; cellobiohydrolase; xylosidase; β-galactosidase; α-glucuronidase; serin-like protease; chitinase; leucine-aminopeptidase; alkaline phosphomonoesterases; acid phosphomonoesterases; phytase; arylsulphatase; basal respiration</td><td>Texture</td><td></td><td>H'</td></tr><tr><td>Pease et al., 2022 Schwarz et al., 2022</td><td>pH; EC; N</td><td></td><td></td><td>percent green cover</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ahmad & Rizvi, 2023</td><td></td><td></td><td>soil wetness</td><td>NDVI</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Balacco et al., 2023</td><td></td><td>root AMF colonization; phosphatase</td><td></td><td>root dry mass; shoot dry mass; root/ shoot ratio</td><td>Decomposition quotient</td></tr><tr><td>Banerjee et al., 2023</td><td></td><td></td><td>volumetric water content</td><td>carbon sequestration rate</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Braun et al., 2023</td><td></td><td></td><td>clay content</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Clos et al., 2023</td><td>N; SOM; Pb; Cr; Se; As; Ni; Cu; Zn</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>de Matos et al., 2023</td><td>cation exchange capacity; SOM; pH; As; Ba; Pb; Co; Cu; Cr; Hg; Ni; Zn</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ding et al., 2023</td><td>C:N; N; SOM; N density</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Golia, 2023</td><td>CaCO3; N; K; P; Ca; Mg; Na; C/N; pH; EC; SOM; Cu; Cd; Pb; Zn</td><td>metabolic quotient qCO2; microbial quotient qMic; MBC</td><td>bulk density texture; bulk density; soil moisture; water holding capacity</td><td></td><td>Risk index of soil pathogens</td></tr><tr><td>Li et al., 2023</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Martin et al., 2023</td><td>δ13C; δ15N; 65 elements</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>McGrath et al., 2023</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tessler et al., 2023</td><td>pH; exchange acidity; SOM; P; K; Ca; Mg; Na; NO3-; Al; Zn</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tóth et al., 2023</td><td>SOM; pH; saturation %, total N %; C/N; CaCO3, Cd; Co; Hg; Ni; Zn</td><td>abundance of arthropod groups; total density; taxa richness</td><td></td><td>EVI</td><td>Species richness; H'</td></tr><tr><td>Wang et al., 2023</td><td>EC; pH; AP; AN; SOM; TC; TN</td><td>number of pill bugs; body length; body weight</td><td>water capacity</td><td>number of plant species; vegetation coverage</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Aguirre-Alberto & Jaramillo-López, 2024</td><td>N; SOM; pH; As; Cd; Cr; Pb</td><td>total fungi; total bacteria; AMF; nematodes</td><td>bulk density; soil moisture; porosity; soil color</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Anuradha, 2024</td><td>N; P; K; pH; EC; SOM</td><td></td><td></td><td>leaf litter; wood litter; mixed; Twigs; total litter</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Burton et al., 2024</td><td>CaCO3; SOM</td><td>total earthworm abundance</td><td>texture; soil moisture; soil color</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Chou et al., 2024</td><td>P; K; Mg; Fe; Mn; SOM; pH; Zn; Al; Ca; Cu; S; Bo</td><td>basal respiration; AMF</td><td>aggregate stability; water holding capacity</td><td></td><td>Soil health score; R'; H'</td></tr><tr><td>Clos & Chrysochoou, 2024</td><td>Pb</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
<table><caption>**Table 2 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Paper</th><th>Chemical properties</th><th>Biological properties</th><th>Physical properties</th><th>Proxies of one or more Ecosystem services</th><th>Indexes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Hiura et al., 2024</td><td>pH; EC; N; SOM; TC; C/N</td><td>average well color development</td><td>bulk density; water content</td><td>tree density; basal area; relative growth rate</td><td>D'; species diversity</td></tr><tr><td>Jordanova et al., 2024</td><td>pH; P; Ca; Mg; Mn; Cu; Pb; Zn; Cd; Al; Fe; Ti; Ni; Co; Cr</td><td></td><td>magnetic susceptibility</td><td></td><td>Multi-element Pollution Load Index; mineral magnetic indicator</td></tr><tr><td>Korneykova et al., 2024</td><td>pH; TN; SOM; AP; TC; AK; Ni; Cu; Pb; Zn; Cd; Co</td><td>microorganisms ribosomal genes number; microbial biomass; spores number</td><td>bulk density</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>McDaniel et al., 2024</td><td>N; P; K; CEC; pH; SOM</td><td>MBC; MBN; MBC:MBN</td><td>bulk density; pore space; water-filled pore space; water infiltration rate; time-to-runoff soil penetration</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pereira et al., 2024a</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Dandelion flowers</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pereira et al., 2024b</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rijk et al., 2024</td><td>pH; cation exchange capacity; Na; Ca; K; Mg; P; PAHs; δ13C; As; Ba; Cd; Co; Cr; Cu; Hg; Ni; Pb; Zn; Mo; Sb</td><td>MBC; basal respiration; substrate-induced respiration; N cycling microbial species</td><td></td><td>leaf N; leaf δ15N; above ground biomass; root biomass</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Séré et al., 2024</td><td>TOC; SOM; EC; cation exchange capacity; C/N; pH; CaCO3; P; Ca; K; Mg; Mn; Na; active limestone; Al; Fe; trace elements; total organic pollutants</td><td>microbial and fungi biomass; enzymatic activities; presence of anecic worms; earthworm density</td><td>soil depth; color; structure; texture; coarse element content; slope</td><td>vegetation cover; root depth</td><td>diversity of biological communities</td></tr><tr><td>Sillo et al., 2024</td><td>volatile organic compounds; cation exchange capacity; P; N, Ca; Mg; Na; K; pH; EC; SOM</td><td></td><td>texture</td><td></td><td>Chao1 index; H'; Bray-Curtis index</td></tr><tr><td>Urbaniak et al., 2024</td><td></td><td>average well colour development</td><td></td><td></td><td>H'; substrate richness; substrate evenness</td></tr><tr><td>Zandybay et al., 2024</td><td>N; AP; AK; AS; SOM; pH; Ca; Mg; Cl; SO; HCO; Pb; Cd; Cr; Ni</td><td></td><td>texture; bulk density; surface temperature</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Zhao et al., 2024a</td><td>SOM; Tetracycline; oxytetracycline; chlortetracycline; doxycycline; ofloxacin; lomefloxacin; ciprofloxacin; enrofloxacin; norfloxacin</td><td></td><td>soil thickness; saturated hydraulic conductivity; clay content</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Zhao et al., 2024b</td><td>N; pH; EC; P; K; cation exchange capacity; SOM; C/N; Zn; Cu; Pb; Cd</td><td>MBC</td><td>bulk density; maximum water-holding capacity; water stable aggregates</td><td>carbon density</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rompato et al., 2025</td><td>pH; AP; SOM; TN</td><td>CO₂ emissions; H₂O emissions; basal respiration; urease; protease; acid phosphomonoesterase; alkaline phosphomonoesterase; β-glucosidase; arylsulfatase</td><td>soil temperature; soil humidity; texture</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Samani et al., 2025</td><td>pH; EC; SOM; calcium carbonate equivalent; cation exchange capacity; Pb; Zn; Cu</td><td>urease; dehydrogenase; alkaline phosphatase</td><td>texture; specific surface area</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yee et al., 2025</td><td>pH; SOM; Al; As; Cd; Cu; Cr; Fe; Pb; Zn</td><td>soil microarthropod abundance</td><td>bulk density</td><td>shoot and root Al, As, Cd, Cu, Cr, Fe, Pb, Zn</td><td>Acari/Collembola ratio; metal contamination index</td></tr></tbody></table>

laboratory analyses, and integrated into a scoring system based on four reference classes (0–3) for each soil function. This study shows that sealed and brownfield soils consistently rank lowest, while urban parks achieve the highest scores, offering a preliminary yet adaptable framework for comparative assessment. Nonetheless, the application of these scoring methods remains limited, reflecting the relatively recent emergence of urban SH as a dedicated research field.

## Research gaps

Despite significant progress, major challenges continue to hinder the effective assessment of urban SH. The high spatial heterogeneity of urban soils complicates the identification of reliable and universally applicable indicators, while the dynamic nature of microbial and faunal communities introduces further variability. Although microbial and faunal bioindicators have proven valuable, their responses to

management practices and contamination stressors remain insufficiently understood, particularly in the long term.

A further gap lies in addressing soil compaction, which remains one of the most pervasive forms of urban soil degradation. While organic amendments have shown promise in reversing compaction effects, more research is needed to establish best practices for their application, especially under different soil types, land uses and contamination scenarios.

Assessment frameworks for SH are still in development. Although recent models, such as CSHT, ISEQE and standardized scoring systems, have advanced the field, there is no consensus on which indicators most effectively capture the complexity of SH in urban environments. Moreover, few of these tools have been systematically applied across cities and regions. Future work should therefore prioritize the integration of
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Distribution of the selected articles by thematic focus. The categories include Ecosystem services, Stakeholder surveys and policies, Soil pollution and remediation, Water management and green infrastructure, and Soil Health assessment. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)</figcaption></figure>

physical, chemical and biological indicators into standardized scoring frameworks, ideally combined with geospatial approaches and bioindicators, to provide more comprehensive and comparable insights into the functioning and resilience of urban soils.

### 4.3. Ecosystem services

#### Current knowledge

Urban SH underpins ecological functions and ESs that are essential for sustaining green spaces (FAO, 2015). These services contribute directly to improved air and water quality, positively influencing urban nature and, in turn, the well-being of city inhabitants (Brevik et al., 2018). Furthermore, recently ESs were a primary driver of desealing projects (Vieillard et al., 2024). Among the most significant services provided by urban soils is carbon sequestration. In cities, where human activities elevate carbon levels, the capacity of soils to act as carbon sinks becomes particularly important (Zhao et al., 2024b). Urban forests represent a key opportunity for carbon storage, although optimizing this potential depends heavily on the site's history and local characteristics (Downey et al., 2021). Urban lawns can also store carbon, but their contribution is offset by maintenance practices that reduce biodiversity and release emissions, thereby undermining some of the intended benefits. Recent work suggests that transforming lawns into semi-natural habitats, such as meadows, can simultaneously improve SH, enhance biodiversity, and increase carbon storage potential (Tessler et al., 2023).

Flood regulation is also an important ES, although it is highly dependent on local soil conditions and management practices. Green spaces such as lawns can mitigate flood impacts, but their effectiveness is strongly influenced by compaction and maintenance intensity. Soil penetration resistance has been used successfully as a proxy for flood retention capacity, revealing substantial variability within and between lawns (Pereira et al., 2024a). This function is also highly dynamic, fluctuating with seasonal changes in soil moisture, which highlights the need for continuous assessment.

The provision of ESs in urban soils is further complicated by spatial variability, a challenge that mirrors difficulties observed in soil health assessment. Soils surrounding roadside trees, for example, are often subject to compaction and debris accumulation, producing highly site-specific responses (Galle et al., 2021). Tools that can detect and quantify such disturbances are therefore critical for accurately modelling and

assessing ES delivery.

Recent studies emphasize that urban soils support a wide range of services beyond carbon storage and flood regulation, including pollution and biodiversity enhancement. However, the effectiveness of these services is consistently shaped by site conditions, land-use history, and ongoing management practices. While methods for quantifying ESs are improving, much of their application in urban settings remains limited, reflecting the relatively recent recognition of the importance of urban soils in delivering ecological and social benefits (O'Riordan et al., 2021).

#### Research gaps

Although research has demonstrated the value of urban soils in supporting ESs, several key gaps persist. A major challenge is understanding how these services evolve over time under varying land-use histories, management practices and soil contexts. For carbon sequestration, in particular, there is a need for long-term studies that consider how storage capacity develops across different soil types and under changing environmental pressures (Downey et al., 2021; Pouyat & Trammell, 2019). Similarly, the capacity of urban soils to regulate floods requires further exploration, particularly in relation to compaction dynamics, seasonal moisture changes and spatial variability within green spaces.

More broadly, there is still no standardized framework for assessing the wide spectrum of ESs provided by urban soils. While progress has been made in quantifying individual services, integrated models that combine biological, chemical and physical parameters are still lacking. Such models are essential for producing more accurate and comparable assessments across different urban contexts.

Future research should prioritize ESs with direct implications for human health, such as those related to air and water quality regulation, biodiversity maintenance and climate mitigation (Baveye et al., 2016; Dominati et al., 2010). Addressing these gaps will ensure a more comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted value of urban soils and strengthen their role in sustainable urban planning.

### 4.4. Water management and green infrastructure

#### Current knowledge

The increasing use of reclaimed water for irrigating urban green areas has brought attention to its potential impacts on SH (Chen et al., 2015; Rahman et al., 2016). In some contexts, reclaimed water can enhance SH by increasing soil organic matter, total nitrogen, and available phosphorus compared to tap water (Chen et al., 2015). Yet, it also carries risks, including heavy metal and salt accumulation, increased sodicity, and reduced hydraulic conductivity, all of which are indicators of soil degradation (Chen et al., 2015; Rahman et al., 2016). Ultimately, the safety and effectiveness of reclaimed water irrigation depend on site-specific conditions and management practices. When properly managed, reclaimed water can support soil functions and urban vegetation, but without safeguards, it may compromise long-term soil health.

Complementary to water reuse, green infrastructure (GI) practices, such as rain gardens and water harvesting, have gained recognition as effective tools to restore ecological functions and support ecosystem services (Buzzard et al., 2021). GI has the capacity to counterbalance negative effects of reclaimed water use while simultaneously promoting more sustainable urban water management. Within this context, Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) have shown particular promise. Recent studies demonstrate that NBS can enhance soil microbial diversity and resilience, increasing microbial activity and positively influencing biodiversity (Urbaniak et al., 2024). Seasonal variability further shapes microbial functional diversity, highlighting the dynamic nature of SH responses to NBS implementation.

#### Research gaps

Despite these advances, significant knowledge gaps remain in understanding how GI and water management practices influence SH over
time. While rain gardens, water harvesting, and NBS have been studied, other GI strategies, such as green and blue corridors, remain underexplored in relation to soil processes, despite their importance for urban regeneration and ecological connectivity (Li et al., 2015). Similarly, the long-term implications of reclaimed water irrigation are not fully understood, particularly concerning cumulative contaminant loads, seasonal microbial shifts, and soil-plant interactions.

Research gaps remain in the integration of water management and GI within a unified soil health framework, particularly the lack of standardized assessment tools that connect SH indicators with reclaimed water use, NBS, and other GI practices. These gaps limit understanding of their combined impacts on microbial diversity, soil resilience, and ecosystem service delivery, constraining the ability of urban water management strategies to both conserve resources and sustain soil functioning.

## 5. Future perspective and conclusions

Urban soils require urgent attention, demanding re-prioritization in policies and funding. This starts with an increased observation of urban soils focusing on comprehensive, interdisciplinary data collection, followed by investigations into the causes and processes affecting urban soils to develop sustainable solutions. Equally urgent is the need to confront the research gaps that hinder such progress. Current studies remain skewed toward chemical properties, overlooking physical, biological, and ecosystem service dimensions vital to human well-being. Reliance on topsoil sampling further limits insight, as deeper layers play a critical role in ecosystem services. Future studies must adopt a whole-profile perspective and fully leverage ecosystem services to advance understanding of urban soil health.

To assess and monitor SH in urban environments, remote sensing and proximal sensing techniques have gained increasing attention as effective and scalable tools. Field-based methods such as electrical conductivity (EC) and magnetic susceptibility (MS) have shown potential to differentiate anthropogenic soils and assess contamination levels, though their accuracy is often constrained by vegetation cover, compaction, and the presence of artifacts, requiring laboratory validation (Howard et al., 2016; Jordanova et al., 2024). Magnetic indicators, such as MS, have also been proposed as proxies for soil contamination, correlating with heavy metal pollution and urbanization intensity (Howard et al., 2016). More recently, emerging technologies including GIS-based soil mapping, in situ sensor systems such as the Plant Spike (Yu et al., 2020), and portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) devices (Clos & Chrysochoou, 2024) provide real-time, cost-effective, and reliable approaches for detecting contamination and monitoring soil properties across urban landscapes (Anuradha, 2024). Coupled with geostatistical modelling, these tools enhance spatial resolution and allow continuous tracking of soil functions over time, thereby supporting adaptive management strategies.

As urbanization accelerates, the intersection of soil science, policy, and stakeholder engagement emerges as a critical nexus for sustainable urban development. In fact, a significant communication gap exists between soil scientists and urban stakeholders, including policymakers, urban planners, and the public. Bridging this communication gap is essential to developing research agendas and policies that effectively address the unique challenges and needs of urban communities (Schwarz et al., 2022). Improved and inclusive collaboration can result in more actionable solutions for enhancing SH in urban settings. Citizen science initiatives, despite challenges with participant engagement, offer a promising way to raise public awareness and generate valuable soil ecosystem data (Burton et al., 2024).

The importance of adopting systematic, proactive soil management practices, rather than reactive approaches, in urban contexts is crucial for long-term soil sustainability across urban ecosystems (McGrath et al., 2023). The transition from the planner's focus on the "soil surface" to the soil scientist's perspective of the "living soil volume" can be realized

if urban soils, beyond their economically valuable surface area, reveal more of their functional depth over time. Soil is first and foremost made visible through a field approach, using a holistic pedological approach that includes the physico-chemical properties and biological activity of soils. Dialogue between stakeholders and action to preserve healthy urban soils will be enabled by the dynamics of living labs (sensu EU Mission Soil, https://mission-soil-platform.ec.europa.eu/living-labs). This new way of working together, closely involving civil society and all its stakeholders alongside researchers on demonstration sites, will provide examples of success stories, to lead the transition to healthy soils as quickly as possible. Soil quality and health measurement networks that are well developed in rural areas should ideally be extended to cities, including a soil monitoring programme to inform stakeholders so that better account is taken of soil in planning strategies (Blanchart et al., 2019). Soils will need to find their place in a circular urban metabolism, via soil engineering and the thoughtful use of urban resources. Giving soil a prominent place in cities will then be a guarantee of transformation and transition towards more resilient and sustainable cities. This will not happen without involving citizens through education, training and communication, and by making citizen science even more attractive. The challenge before us is to go beyond the presumed complexity of urban soils, to make them tangible and comprehensible to everyone, and above all to convince as many people as possible that the health of (urban) soils and the health of human beings are intimately linked.

## Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

During the preparation of this work the authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI) in order to improve language and readability of the text. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Michelangelo Vuono:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. **Domenico Paolo Di Lonardo:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Funding acquisition. **Christophe Schwartz:** Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition. **Fabio Terribile:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Acknowledgements

The work presented in this paper is part of and supported by the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation program under the Grant Agreement 101091010 for the Soil Mission project BENCHMARKS.

## Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

## References

Abu-Shanab, N. S., Alananbeh, K. M., Othman, Y. A., & Al-Ajlouni, M. G. (2022). Effect of using Trichoderma spp. on turfgrass quality under different levels of salinity. *Water (Switzerland),* 14(23), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14233943
Adhikari, K., Smith, D. R., Collins, H., Hajda, C., Acharya, B. S., & Owens, P. R. (2022). Mapping within-field soil health variations using apparent electrical conductivity, topography, and machine learning. *Agronomy*, 12(5), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051019

Aguirre-Alberto, L., & Jaramillo-López, P. F. (2024). The health status of an urban riparian soil using soil nematodes and various microorganisms as biological indicators. *Environmental and Sustainability Indicators*, 22(October 2023), 1–7. http://s://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2024.100360

Ahmad, F., & Rizvi, J. (2023). GIS modeling of environmental parameters for identification of landscape for expansion of biodiversity conservation, and greenery projects (a case study for Neom region, Saudi Arabia). *Modeling Earth Systems and Environment*, 9(2), 2987–2992. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-022-01548-7

Anne, B., Geoffroy, S., Cherel, J., Warot, G., Marie, S., Noël, C. J., Louis, M. J., & Christophe, S. (2018). Towards an operational methodology to optimize ecosystem services provided by urban soils. *Landscape and Urban Planning*, 176(May 2017), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.019

Anuradha, C. T. (2024). Soil quality analysis and mapping of various land uses using geospatial technology: A case study. *Applied Geomatics*, 16(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12518-023-00538-3

Azunre, G. A., Amponsah, O., Peprah, C., Takyi, S. A., & Braimah, I. (2019). A review of the role of urban agriculture in the sustainable city discourse. *Cities*, 93(March 2018), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.02.046.004.

Balacco, J. R., Vaidya, B. P., Hagmann, D. F., Goodey, N. M., & Krumins, J. A. (2023). Mycorrhizal infection can ameliorate abiotic factors in urban soils. *Microbial Ecology*, 85(1), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-021-09145-y

Bandowe, B. A. M., Leimer, S., Meusel, H., Velestu, A., Dassen, S., Eisenhauer, N., Hoffmann, T., Oelmann, Y., & Wilcke, W. (2019). Plant diversity enhances the natural attenuation of polycyclic aromatic compounds (PAHs and oxygenated PAHs) in grassland soils. *Soil Biology and Biochemistry*, 129(September 2018), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.10.017.

Bandowe, B. A. M., Shukurov, N., Leimer, S., Kersten, M., Steinberger, Y., & Wilcke, W. (2021). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soils of an industrial area in semi-arid Uzbekistan: Spatial distribution, relationship with trace metals and risk assessment. *Environmental Geochemistry and Health*, 43(11), 4847–4861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-021-00974-3

Banerjee, R., Gangopadhyay, S., Batabyal, S., Das, N., Ray, H., & Manda, S. (2023). Litter dynamics of forest soil in an urban and pristine area of West Bengal, India. *Journal of Environmental Biology*, 44(5), 691–698.

Baveye, P. C., Baveye, J., & Gowdy, J. (2016). Soil “ecosystem” services and natural capital: Critical appraisal of research on uncertain ground. *Frontiers in Environmental Science*, 4(JUN), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00041

Bidar, G., Pelfrène, A., Schwartz, C., Waterlot, C., Sahmer, K., Marot, F., & Douay, F. (2020). Urban kitchen gardens: Effect of the soil contamination and parameters on the trace element accumulation in vegetables – A review. *Science of The Total Environment*, 738, Article 139569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139569. ISSN 0048-9697.

Blanchart, A., Consalés, J. N., Séré, G., & Schwartz, C. (2019). Consideration of soil in urban planning documents—a French case study. *Journal of Soils and Sediments*, 19, 3235–3244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-2028-x

Braun, R. C., Straw, C. M., Soldat, D. J., Bekken, M. A. H., Patton, A. J., Lonsdorf, E. V., & Horgan, B. P. (2023). Strategies for reducing inputs and emissions in turfgrass systems. *Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management*, 9(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.20218

Brevik, E. C., Pereg, L., Steffan, J. J., & Burgess, L. C. (2018). Soil ecosystem services and human health. *Current Opinion in Environmental Science and Health*, 5, 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2018.07.003

Bünemann, E. K., Bongiorno, G., Bai, Z., Creamer, R. E., De Deyn, G., de Goede, R., Fleskens, L., Geissen, V., Kuyper, T. W., Mäder, P., Pulleman, M., Sukkel, W., van Groenigen, J. W., & Brussard, L. (2018). Soil quality – a critical review. *Soil Biology and Biochemistry*, 120(September 2017), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.030.

Burghardt, W., Morel, J. L., & Zhang, G.-L. (2015). Development of the soil research about urban, industrial, traffic, mining and military areas (SUITMA). *Soil Science and Plant Nutrition*, 61(sup1), 3–21.

Burton, V. J., Jones, A. G., Robinson, L. D., Eggleton, P., & Purvis, A. (2024). Earthworm Watch: Insights into urban earthworm communities in the UK using citizen science. *European Journal of Soil Biology*, 121, Article 103622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsbi.2024.103622

Buzzard, V., Gil-Loaiza, J., Graf Grachet, N., Talkington, H., Youngerman, C., Tafly, M. M., & Meredith, L. K. (2021). Green infrastructure influences soil health: Biological divergence one year after installation. *Science of the Total Environment*, 801, Article 149644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149644

Chen, W., Lu, S., Pan, N., Wang, Y., & Wu, L. (2015). Impact of reclaimed water irrigation on soil health in urban green areas. *Chemosphere*, 119, 654–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.07.035

Chou, M. Y., Pavlou, D., Rice, P. J., Spokas, K. A., Soldat, D. J., & Koch, P. L. (2024). Microbial diversity and soil health parameters associated with turfgrass landscapes. *Applied Soil Ecology*, 196(January), Article 105311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2024.105311

Clos, H., & Chrysochoou, M. (2024). Investigation of an optimal sampling resolution to support soil management decisions for urban plots. *Environmental Management*, 958–969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-02012-1

Clos, H., Chrysochoou, M., Bompoti, N., & Isleib, J. (2023). A soil screening study to evaluate soil health for urban garden applications in Hartford, CT. *Sustainability (Switzerland)*, 15(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107924

ÇOMAKLI, E., BİNGÖL, M. S., & ÇOMAKLI, T. (2018). Determining the Some Heavy Metal Content of Pinus sylvestris Needles and Soil in the Urban Forest by the Side of the Road. *Alinteri Zirai Bilimler Dergisi*, 33(2), 209–214. https://doi.org/10.28955/alinterizbd.444443.

Cornu, S., Keller, C., Béchet, B., Delolme, C., Schwartz, C., & Vidal-Beaudet, L. (2021). Pedological characteristics of artificialized soils: A snapshot. *Geoderma*, 401, Article 115321.

Craul, P. J. (1992). *Urban soil in landscape design*. John Wiley & Sons.

De Bon, H., Parrot, L., & Moustier, P. (2009). Sustainable urban agriculture in developing countries: A review. *Sustainable Agriculture*, 31, 69–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2666-8_38

Ding, Q., Shao, H., Zhang, C., & Fang, X. (2023). The patterns of soil nitrogen stocks and C:N stoichiometry under impervious surfaces in China. *Earth System Science Data, 15*(10), 4599–4612. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-4599-2023

Dominati, E., Patterson, M., & Mackay, A. (2010). A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. *Ecological Economics*, 69(9), 1858–1868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.05.002

Downey, A. E., Groffman, P. M., Mejía, G. A., Cook, E. M., Sritrairat, S., Karty, R., Palmer, M. I., & Mcphearson, T. (2021). Urban forestry & urban greening soil carbon sequestration in urban afforestation sites in New York City. *Urban Forestry & Urban Greening*, 65(September), Article 127342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufg.2021.127342

Effland, W. R., & Pouyat, R. V. (1997). The genesis, classification, and mapping of soils in urban areas. *Urban Ecosystems*, 1, 217–228.

El Khalil, H., Schwartz, C., Elhamiani, O., Kubiniok, J., Morel, J. L., & Boularbah, A. (2008). Contribution of technic materials to the mobile fraction of metals in urban soils in Marrakech (Morocco). *Journal of Soils and Sediments*, 8, 17–22.

El Khalil, H., Schwartz, C., El Hamiani, O., Kubiniok, J., Morel, J. L., & Boularbah, A. (2013). Distribution of major elements and trace metals as indicators of technosolidation of urban and suburban soils. *Journal of Soils and Sediments*, 13, 519–530.

Ellili-Bargaoui, Y., Walter, C., Lemercier, B., & Michot, D. (2021). Assessment of six soil ecosystem services by coupling simulation modelling and field measurement of soil properties. *Ecological Indicators*, 121, Article 107211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107211

Evangelou, M. W. H., & Deram, A. (2014). Phyton management: A realistic approach to soil remediating phyto technologies with new challenges for plant science. *International Journal of Plant Biology and Research*, 2(4), 1023.

Fabbri, D., Pizzol, R., Calza, P., Malandrino, M., Gaggero, E., Padoan, E., & Ajmonе-Marsan, F. (2021). Constructed technosols: A strategy toward a circular economy. *Applied Sciences*, 11(8), 3432.

FAO (2015). Soil functions. Soils deliver ecosystem services that enable life on Earth - Infographics. FAO Publications Catalogue 2022. https://www.fao.org/documents/ca/rd/en/details=0815e457-c6a4-47e9-ab6c-f23224279834.

Fierer, N., Bradford, M. A., & Jackson, R. B. (2007). Toward an ecological classification of soil bacteria. *Ecology*, 88(6), 1354–1364.

Galle, N. J., Brinton, W., Vos, R., Basu, B., Duarte, F., Collier, M., Ratti, C., & Pilla, F. (2021). Correlation of WorldView-3 spectral vegetation indices and soil health indicators of individual urban trees with exceptions to topsoil disturbance. *City and Environment Interactions*, 11(February), Article 100068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2021.100068

Golia, E. E. (2023). The impact of heavy metal contamination on soil quality and plant nutrition. Sustainable management of moderate contaminated agricultural and urban soils, using low cost materials and promoting circular economy. *Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy*, 33(February), Article 101046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2023.101046

Gómez-Brandón, M., Herbón, C., Probst, M., Fornasier, F., Barral, M. T., & Paradelo, R. (2022). Influence of land use on the microbiological properties of urban soils. *Applied Soil Ecology*, 175, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsol.2022.104425

Gómez-sagasti, M. T., Garbisu, C., Urra, J., Míguez, F., Artetxe, U., Hernández, A., Vilela, J., Alkorta, I., Becerril, J. M., & Ruiz-lozano, J. M. (2021). Mycorrhizal-Assisted Phytopremediation and Intercropping Strategies Improved the Health of Contaminated Soil in a Peri-Urban Area Site Description and Experimental. 12(July), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.693044.

Greiner, L., Keller, A., Grét-Regamey, A., & Papritz, A. (2017). Soil function assessment: Review of methods for quantifying the contributions of soils to ecosystem services. *Land Use Policy*, 69(September), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.06.025

Gurjar, D. S., Kaur, R., Lal, K., Singh, R., & Singh, K. P. (2020). Impact of three years continuous wastewater irrigations on the soil chemical properties under turfgrass (Cynodon dactylori). *Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences*, 90(5), 890–894. https://doi.org/10.5609/ijas.v90i5.104353

Harvey, P. J., Taylor, M. P., Kristensen, L. J., Grant-Vest, S., Rouillon, M., Wu, L., & Handley, H. K. (2016). Evaluation and assessment of the efficacy of an abatement strategy in a former lead smelter community, Boolaroo, Australia. *Environmental Geochemistry and Health*, 38(4), 941–954. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-015-9779-8

Hiura, T., Okada, H., Terada, C., Nakamura, M., & Kaneko, N. (2024). Effects of soil compaction on above- and belowground interactions during the early stage of forest development. *Urban Forestry & Urban Greening*, 102(November), Article 128565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufg.2024.128565

Howard, J. L., Orlicki, K. M., & LeTarte, S. M. (2016). Evaluation of some proximal sensing methods for mapping soils in urbanized terrain, Detroit, Michigan, USA. *Catena*, 143, 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.03.011

Joimel, S., Cortet, J., Jolivet, C. C., Saby, N. P. A., Chenot, E.-D., Branchu, P., Consalés, J.-N., Lefort, C., Morel, J.-L., & Schwartz, C. (2016). Physico-chemical
characteristics of topsoil for contrasted forest, agricultural, urban and industrial land uses in France. *Science of the Total Environment*, 545, 40-47.

Jones, D. L., Nguyen, C., & Finlay, R. D. (2009). *Carbon flow in the rhizosphere: carbon trading at the soil-root interface*. Springer.

Jordanova, N., Mokreva, A., Jordanova, D., Tcherkezova, E., & Stoyanova, V. (2024). Mineral magnetic properties of urban forest soils tailored to soil quality indicator. *Catena*, 234(June 2023), 107569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2023.107569.

Korneykova, M., Vasenev, V., Kozlova, E., Soshina, A., Nikitin, D., Dolgikh, A., & Saltan, N. (2024). Microbial communities of urban and industrial polluted soils in the Russian Arctic. *Geoderma Regional*, 39(November), Article e00890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2024.e00890

Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. *Science*, 304(5677), 1623-1627.

Libessart, G., Franck-Néel, C., Branchu, P., & Schwartz, C. (2022). The human factor of pedogenesis described by historical trajectories of land use: The case of Paris. *Landscape and Urban Planning*, 222, Article 104393.

Liddicoat, C., Sydnor, H., Cando-Dumancela, C., Dresken, R., Liu, J., Gellie, N. J. C., Mills, J. G., Young, J. M., Weyrich, L. S., & Hutchinson, M. R. (2020). Naturally-diverse airborne environmental microbial exposures modulate the gut microbiome and may provide anxiolytic benefits in mice. *Science of the Total Environment*, 701, Article 134684.

Li, M., Chen, L., Zhao, F., Tang, J., Bu, Q., Feng, Q., & Yang, L. (2023). An innovative risk evaluation method on soil pathogens in urban-rural ecosystem. *Journal of Hazardous Materials*, 459(July), Article 132286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.132286

Li, T., Meng, L., Herman, U., Lu, Z., & Crittenden, J. (2015). A survey of soil enzyme activities along major roads in Beijing: The implications for traffic corridor green space management. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*, 12(10), 12475-12488. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerh121012475

Martin, A. P., Lim, C., Kah, M., Rattenbury, M. S., Rogers, K. M., Sharp, E. L., & Turnbull, R. E. (2023). Soil pollution driven by duration of urbanisation and dwelling quality in urban areas: An example from Auckland, New Zealand. *Applied Geochemistry*, 148 (November 2022), 105518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2022.105518.

de Matos, G. S. B., Brasil Neto, A. B., Gama, M. A. P., Gonçalves, D. A. M., Cardoso, D. F. S. R., & Ramos, H. M. N. (2023). Soil potentially toxic element contents in an area under different land uses in the Brazilian Amazon. *Heliyon*, 9(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17108

McDaniel, M. D., Thompson, G. L., & Sauer, P. (2024). Decomposition and organic amendments provide short-term improvements in soil health during urban, residential development. *Journal of Soil and Water Conservation*, 79(4), 169-179. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2024.00111

McGrath, D., Plummer, R., Williams, C., & McGlynn, B. (2023). Soil health and management matters: A survey of field tree nursery producers. *Journal of Environmental Management*, 331(July 2022), 117162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117162

Mills, J. G., Bissett, A., Gellie, N. J. C., Lowe, A. J., Selway, C. A., Thomas, T., Weinstein, P., Weyrich, L. S., & Breed, M. F. (2020). Revegetation of urban green space rewrites soil microbiota with implications for human health and urban design. *Restoration Ecology*, 28, S322-S334.

Morel, J. L., Chenu, C., & Lorenz, K. (2015). Ecosystem services provided by soils of urban, industrial, traffic, mining, and military areas (SUITMAs). *Journal of Soils and Sediments*, 15, 1659-1666.

Morel, J.-L. J.-L., Schwartz, C. C., Florentin, L., & de Kimpe, C. (2005). Urban soils. *Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment*.

Naylo, A., Almeida Pereira, S. I., Benidire, L., El Khalil, H., Castro, P. M. L., Ouvrard, S., Schwartz, C., & Boularbah, A. (2019). Trace and major element contents, microbial communities, and enzymatic activities of urban soils of Marrakech city along an anthropization gradient. *Journal of Soils and Sediments*, 19, 2153-2165.

Norra, S., & Stuben, D. (2003). Urban soils. *Journal of Soils and Sediments*, 3(4), 230-233.

O'Riordan, R., Davies, J., Stevens, C., Quinton, J. N., & Boyko, C. (2021). The ecosystem services of urban soils: A review. *Geoderma*, 395(March), Article 115076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115076

Orsini, F., Kahane, R., Nono-Womdim, R., & Gianquinto, G. (2013). Urban agriculture in the developing world: A review. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development*, 33(4), 695-720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0143-z

Pauchard, A., Aguayo, M., Pena, E., & Urrutia, R. (2006). Multiple effects of urbanization on the biodiversity of developing countries: The case of a fast-growing metropolitan area (Concepción, Chile). *Biological Conservation*, 127(3), 272-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.05.015

Pease, B., Thompson, G. L., & Thoms, A. W. (2022). Evaluation of compost and soil mix ratios for perennial ryegrass establishment on topsoil and subsoil. *HortTechnology*, 32 (2), 191-198. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH04939-21

Pereira, P., Inacio, M., Kalinauskas, M., Pinto, L., Barcelo, D., & Bogunovic, I. (2024a). A simple method to assess flood regulation supply in urban lawns. *MethodsX*, 13 (August), Article 102905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2024.102905

Pereira, P., Kalinauskas, M., Pinto, L. V., Baltranaite, E., Barcelo, D., Zhao, W., & Inacio, M. (2024b). A simple method to map pollination ecosystem services potential in urban lawns. *MethodsX*, 13(August), Article 102943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2024.102943

Pike, K., O'Herrin, K., Klimas, C., & Vogt, J. (2021). Tree preservation during construction: An evaluation of a comprehensive municipal tree ordinance. *Urban Forestry and Urban Greening*, 57(August 2020), 126914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126914

Pleshakova, Y. V., Ngun, C. T., & Reshetnikov, M. V. (2019). Biodiagnostics of Soil under a Low Level of Anthropogenic Impact (by the example of the Urban Settlement of

Stepnoe, Saratov Oblast). *Biology Bulletin*, 46(10), 1397-1405. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1062359019100268

Pouyat, R. V., Page-Dumroese, D. S., Patel-Weynand, T., & Geiser, L. H. (2020). Forest and Rangeland Soils of the United States Under Changing Conditions: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis. In *Forest and Rangeland Soils of the United States under Changing Conditions: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis*. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45216-2.

Pouyat, R. V., & Trammell, T. L. E. (2019). Chapter 10 - Climate change and urban forest soils. In M. Busse, C. P. Giardina, D. M. Morris, & D. S. Page-Dumroese (Eds.), *Global Change and Forest Soils* (Vol. 36, pp. 189-211). Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63998-1-00010-0

Pouyat, R. V., Yesilonis, I. D., Russell-Anelli, J., & Neerchal, N. K. (2007). Soil chemical and physical properties that differentiate urban land-use and cover types. *Soil Science Society of America Journal*, 71(3), 1010-1019. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaaj2006.0164

Pullin, A. S., Frampton, G., Livoreil, B., & Petrokofsky, G. (2022). Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management: Version 5.1.

Quon, S. (1999). *Planning for Urban Agriculture: A Review of Tools and Strategies for Urban Planners Cities Feeding People Series Report 28 SUMMARY Planning for Urban Agriculture: A Review of Tools and Strategies for Urban Planners*.

Rahman, M. M., Hagare, D., & Maheshwari, B. (2016). Use of recycled water for irrigation of open spaces: benefits and risks. *Balanced Urban Development: Options and Strategies for Liveable Cities*, 261-288.

Ramos, B. A., & Roca, J. C. (2015). Megalopolis: An assay for the identification of the world urban mega-structures. 55th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: “World Renaissance: Changing Roles for People and Places”, 25-28 August 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/124709.

Rijk, I., Ekblad, A., Dahlin, A. S., Enell, A., Larsson, M., Leroy, P., Kleja, D. B., Tiberg, C., Hallin, S., & Jones, C. (2024). Biochar and peat amendments affect nitrogen retention, microbial capacity and nitrogen cycling microbial communities in a metal and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon contaminated urban soil. *Science of the Total Environment*, 936(May), Article 173454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173454

Rompato, B., Mondanelli, L., Lo Piccolo, E., Coccozza, C., Mastronalonardo, G., Giagnoni, L., Fantoni, G., Bizzarri, A., Mariotti, B., Verdi, L., Maltoni, A., Ferrini, F., & Certini, G. (2025). Cork and compost as mitigators of soil compaction from trampling in urban green areas: effects on plant growth and soil functionality. *Urban Science*, 9(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9010005

Samani, M., Golchin, A., Alikhani, H. A., Baybordi, A., Sharma, N., Ahlawat, Y. K., Grewal, U., Mishra, S., & Malik, A. (2025). Soil remediation using modified diatomite: assessing chemical properties, enzymatic reactions and heavy metal immobilization. *International Journal of Environmental Research*, 19(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-024-00691-6

Sapkota, M., Young, J., Slaughter, L., Acosta-Martinez, V., & Coldren, C. (2021). Soil microbial biomass and composition from urban landscapes in a semiarid climate. *Applied Soil Ecology*, 158(May 2020), 103810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsol.2020.103810

Savanoor, V. V., Yadav, R., & Louhar, G. (2021). Vertical distribution of heavy metals in soil profile of peri-urban areas of Haryana. *Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences*, 91 (11), 1597-1601. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v9i11.118538

Sax, M. S., Bassuk, N., van Es, H., & Rakow, D. (2017). Long-term remediation of compacted urban soils by physical fracturing and incorporation of compost. *Urban Forestry and Urban Greening*, 24(December 2015), 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.03.023

Schindelbeck, R. R., van Es, H. M., Abawi, G. S., Wolfe, D. W., Whitlow, T. L., Gugino, B. K., Idowu, O. J., & Moebius-Clune, B. N. (2008). Comprehensive assessment of soil quality for landscape and urban management. *Landscape and Urban Planning*, 88(2), 73-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.08.006

Schwarz, C., Morel, J. L., Saumier, S., Whiting, S. N., & Baker, A. J. M. (1999). Root development of the zinc-hyperaccumulator plant Thlaspi caerulescens as affected by metal origin, content and localization in soil. *Plant and Soil*, 208, 103-115.

Schwarz, K., Wohldmann, E. L., Chen, Y., Pouyat, R. V., Gonzalez, A., Mao, S., & Day, S. D. (2022). Community knowledge and concerns about urban soil science, practice, and process: perspectives from the healthy soils for healthy communities initiative in Los Angeles, CA, United States. *Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution*, 9 (January). https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.781587

Seboko, K. R., Kotze, E., van Tol, J., & van Zijl, G. (2021). Characterization of soil carbon stocks in the city of Johannesburg. *Land*, 10(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010083

Sefati, Z., Khalilimoghadam, B., & Nadian, H. (2019). Catena Assessing urban soil quality by improving the method for soil environmental quality evaluation in a saline groundwater area of Iran. *Catena*, 173(November 2018), 471-480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.10.040

Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S., Kalantari, Z., Egidì, G., Gaburova, L., & Salvati, L. (2022). Urbanisation-driven land degradation and socioeconomic challenges in peri-urban areas: Insights from Southern Europe. *Ambio*, 51(6), 1446-1458.

Sellami, M. H., & Terribile, F. (2023). Research evolution on the impact of agronomic practices on soil health from 1996 to 2021: A bibliometric analysis. *Soil Systems*, 7 (3), 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems7030078

Séré, G., Lé Guern, C., Bispo, A., Layet, C., Ducommun, C., Cesse, M., Schwartz, C., & Vidal-Beaudet, L. (2024). Selection of soil health indicators for modelling soil functions to promote smart urban planning. *Science of the Total Environment*, 924, Article 171347.

Séré, G., Schwartz, C., Ouvrard, S., Sauvage, C., Renat, J.-C., & Morel, J. L. (2008). Soil construction: A step for ecological reclamation of derelict lands. *Journal of Soils and Sediments*, 8, 130-136.
Shi, Z. J., Lu, Y., Xu, Z. G., & Fu, S. L. (2008). Enzyme activities of urban soils under different land use in the Shenzhen city, China. *Plant, Soil and Environment, 54*(8), 341–346. https://doi.org/10.17221/415-pse.

Sillo, F., Neri, L., Calvo, A., Zampieri, E., Petruzzelli, G., Ferraris, I., Delledonne, M., Zaldei, A., Gioli, B., Baraldi, R., & Balestrini, R. (2024). Correlation between microbial communities and volatile organic compounds in an urban soil provides clues on soil quality towards sustainability of city flowerbeds. *Heliyon, 10*(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023

Streeter, M. T., & Schilling, K. E. (2018). Effects of golf course management on subsurface soil properties in Iowa. *The Soil, 4*(2), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-4-93-2018

Tessler, M., David, F. J., Cunningham, S. W., & Herstoff, E. M. (2023). Rewilding in miniature: suburban meadows can improve soil microbial biodiversity and soil health. *Microbial Ecology, 85*(3), 1077–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-023-02171-4

Tinsley, J. (2003). Urban agriculture and sustainable livelihoods. *Peace Review, 15*(3), 295–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/1040265032000130887

Tóth, Z., Dombos, M., & Hornung, E. (2023). Urban soil quality deteriorates even with low heavy metal levels: an arthropod-based multi-indices approach. *Ecological Applications, 33*(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2848

United Nations. (2018). *Revision of world urbanization prospects* (p. 799). New York, NY, USA: United Nations.

Urbaniak, M., Mierzejewska-Sinner, E., Bednarek, A., Krauze, K., & Włodarczyk-Marciniak, R. (2024). Microbial response to nature-based solutions in urban soils: a comprehensive analysis using Biolog® EcoPlates™, *Science of the Total Environment, 928*(April). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172360

Vieillard, C., Vidal-Beaudet, L., Dagois, R., Lothode, M., Vadepied, F., Gontier, M., Schwartz, C., & Ouvrard, S. (2024). Impacts of soil de-sealing practices on urban land-uses, soil functions and ecosystem services in French cities. *Geoderma Regional, 38*(May). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2024.e00854

Wang, S., Zhu, Z., Yang, L., Li, H., & Ge, B. (2023). *Body size and Weight of Pill Bugs (Armadillidium vulgare).* Vary between Urban Green Space Habitats., 1–12.

Wang, X., Wu, J., & Kumari, D. (2018). Composition and functional genes analysis of bacterial communities from urban parks of Shanghai, China and their role in ecosystem functionality. *Landscape and Urban Planning, 177*(March), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.003

Ward, E. B., Doroski, D. A., Felson, A. J., Hallett, R. A., Oldfield, E. E., Kuebbing, S. E., Bradford, M. A., Oroski, D. A. A. D., & Elson, A. L. J. F. (2021). Positive long-term impacts of restoration on soils in an experimental urban forest. *Ecological Applications, 31*(5), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2336

WRB-FAO, I. W. G. (2015). *IUSS Working Group WRB. 2015. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, update 2015 International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resources Reports N°. 106.* International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS) Vienna, Austria.

Yee, E. G., Szlavecz, K., & Avolio, M. L. (2025). Urban weedy plantations (Plantago spp.) do not hyperaccumulate heavy metals nor shelter their soil microarthropod communities from these metals. *Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 104*(October 2024), 128632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128632.

Yu, C., Kam, K., Xu, Y., Cui, Z., Steingart, D., Gorlatova, M., Culligan, P., & Kymissis, I. (2020). Plant spike: A low-cost, low-power beacon for smart city soil health monitoring. *IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 7*(9), 9080–9090. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2020.3003479

Zandybay, A., Saspugayeva, G., Khussainov, M., Karelkhan, N., Kydyrova, A., & Adylbek, Z. (2024). Assessing the impact of urban development on soil health and nutrient cycling across Urban areas. *Journal of Ecological Engineering, 25*(12), 106–123. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/193832

Zhao, F., Yang, L., Feng, Q., Ji, C., Li, M., Fang, L., ... Chen, L. (2024a). Regional disparities and social-ecological constraints of soil antibiotic pollution in urban agglomerations of China. *Progress in Physical Geography, 48*(4), 536–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091333241263796

Zhao, H., O'Connor, J., Zou, S., Solaiman, Z. M., Mickan, B. S., & Bolan, N. (2024b). Soil health and carbon storage in community gardens in the Perth metropolitan area, Australia. *Soil Use and Management, 40*(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.13033