Does soil have value beyond what it provides humans?
Pär-Erik Back1, Sofie Hermansson1, Lars Rosén2, Yevheniya Volchko2, Karin Wiberg3, Malin
Fransson4, Anja Enell1
1
Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Sweden
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
2
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
[email protected]; [email protected]
3
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
[email protected]
4
Swedish Transport Administration, Sweden
[email protected]
Abstract: Estimates from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency suggest that there are
approximately 80,000 contaminated sites in Sweden. A substantial number of these may require some
form of remediation. The dominating remediation technique is excavation of the contaminated soil
and subsequent disposal at landfills. The protection of the soil ecosystem is often the driving
argument for the excavation, and the decision to remediate is usually based on a simplified risk
assessment where actual soil contaminant concentrations are compared to generic guideline values.
Few Swedish examples of site-specific ecological risk assessment (ERA) exist and there is yet no
agreed methodology on how it should be performed and how the results should be interpreted. A
common problem is how the soil ecosystem at contaminated sites should be valued. Is it worth
protection, and if so, why? These questions are answered differently among authorities and other
stakeholders throughout Sweden, and there is clearly a need for a structured way to answer such
questions. Hence, the purpose of this study was to conceptually clarify what is meant by the
protection value of the soil ecosystem, and to describe what components this value is comprised of.
Different environmental ethic views can lead to different protection values of the soil ecosystem,
depending on who performs the valuation. A person with an anthropocentric view would value the
soil ecosystem solely for the resources and services it can provide to us humans; for example food
production, clean groundwater etc. These values are called instrumental values, often expressed as
ecosystem services. On the other hand, a person with an ecocentric view would argue that the soil has
a value beyond what it provides humans, i.e. a value of its own, or a so called intrinsic value. In order
to create a common ground for valuation in ERA, we based our study on the environmental ethics that
form the basis of the Swedish environmental legislation; the Swedish Environmental Code. This
legislation seems to be based on a combination of inter-generational anthropocentrism and weak
ecocentrism. Firstly, this means that the nature has a value in the resources and services it provides (or
has potential to provide), both present and future generations. Secondly, both humans and nature are
ascribed intrinsic values, i.e. the nature has a value independent of the human population. However,
the intrinsic value of humans is the strongest. Consequently, when the protection value of the soil
ecosystem at a contaminated site is to be assessed, both types of values must be included. However, it
is not the actual instrumental values of the contaminated land at the time of the ERA that should be
evaluated, but the potential values.
In conclusion, according to our interpretation of the Swedish Environmental Code, the soil ecosystem
has a value beyond what it provides humans. The soil’s intrinsic value is especially important to
consider at contaminated sites where the soil has an important function in itself or as part of the whole
ecosystem, but where humans have limited use of the soil environment. The protection value of the
soil may in such cases be significant, even though the land is not used by humans. Furthermore, the
time perspective is particularly important to take into account, regarding the instrumental values.
Some ecosystem services may not exist today, but may arise in the future, depending on how and for
what purposes the land will be used. Finally, it is not only instrumental values for humans (i.e.
ecosystem services) that should be considered but also the instrumental values the soil provide other
parts of the ecosystem, since nature has a value on its own.
Two approaches to environmental ethics in Swedish legislation
The Swedish Environmental Code1 provides the basis for the management of contaminated sites in
Sweden. It seems to be based on a combination of two environmental ethics: inter-generational
anthropocentrism and weak ecocentrism.2 Inter-generational anthropocentrism is a human-centred
approach based on the belief of equality between generations. The present and future generations are
assigned an intrinsic value; in other words, each person has a value that is independent of the benefits
that others derive from that person. According to this view, the ecosystem itself is not considered to
have intrinsic value, only instrumental value. This means that the value of the ecosystem lies solely in
the resources it provides to humans. A common term for the instrumental values of the ecosystem to
humans is ecosystem services3, i.e. the services that the ecosystem provides us with.
In the other approach, weak ecocentrism, humans are ascribed a strong intrinsic value, but the
ecosystem also has an intrinsic value4. Both ecological entities (species, habitats, ecosystems, or the
entire biosphere) and the individual members involved in these entities (humans, animals and plants)
have a value, but the intrinsic value of humans is strongest.
The intrinsic value of the soil ecosystem and instrumental values
The view of nature in Swedish environmental legislation, namely that nature’s intrinsic value should
be considered, leads us to the conclusion that the soil ecosystem has a value beyond what it provides
humans. But what does this value consist of? The term soil ecosystem usually refers to soil as one unit
of the whole ecosystem. Adopting a holistic approach means that soil-dwelling individuals,
populations, species and habitats are included in the concept of the soil ecosystem. This makes it
possible to consider only one intrinsic value; that of soil ecosystem, which includes all the constituent
parts. An important aspect of such a merger is that the intrinsic value of the soil ecosystem is
primarily based on function, not on objects. It is not the specific organisms in the soil ecosystem that
constitute its main intrinsic value, but the function of soil as a system. This function includes not only
organisms, but also processes, different soil functions and abiotic components of the soil.
Apart from its intrinsic value, the soil ecosystem also has instrumental values, for both humans and
the ecosystem as a whole. The instrumental values to humans can be expressed in terms of ecosystem
services, either those provided directly by the soil ecosystem, or indirectly via other parts of the
ecosystem. An example of a direct ecosystem service is the production of berries and fruit, while bird
watching is an example of an indirect service, where the soil ecosystem produces food for birds,
which are in turn studied by humans. The fact that birds find food on the ground can also be beneficial
to the ecosystem as a whole, without humans being involved. This, and similar benefits, thus gives
rise to other instrumental values than ecosystem services, as it is the ecosystem as a whole that is the
recipient. Because the recipients are different – humans and the ecosystem – there will be no double
counting, despite the fact that the food and the birds may be the same, as in the example above.
The protection value of the soil ecosystem
When the protection value of the soil ecosystem at a contaminated site is to be assessed, both types of
values described above must be included (i.e. both intrinsic and instrumental values). However, it is
not solely the actual instrumental values of the contaminated site at the time of the risk assessment
that should be evaluated, but the potential values. This means the values associated with current,
planned and anticipated land use in the long term. The protection value is thus specific to the location
in question, and is affected by the land use and the values it is expected to generate via the soil
ecosystem. If, for example, the land is currently used for industrial purposes but is to be used as a
park/recreational area after the soil remediation, it can be expected that both the contribution of the
soil ecosystem to the park ecosystem and the park’s ecosystem services will contribute to the
protection value, despite the fact that these instrumental values are largely lacking at the time of the
risk assessment.
In conclusion, the protection value of the soil ecosystem (Figure 1) can be described by the following
three value components:
1. The intrinsic value of the soil ecosystem.
2. The potential ecosystem services and the potential contributions of the soil ecosystem to other
ecosystem services, for current and future generations.
3. The potential contribution of the soil ecosystem to the ecosystem as a whole.
The two latter value components refer to the values of a certain anticipated land use. Hence, it can be
concluded that the protection value of the soil ecosystem can only be completely ignored when all
three value components have negligible value for present- and future generations.
Fig. 1: The protection value of the soil ecosystem consists of three value components: 1) the intrinsic value of
the soil ecosystem, 2) the potential ecosystem services (blue arrow) and the potential contributions of the soil
ecosystem to other ecosystem services (blue dashed arrow), 3) the potential contribution of the soil ecosystem to
the ecosystem as a whole (red arrow). Green boxes mark components with intrinsic value.
Discussion
In the guidelines developed by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency on risk assessment,
generic levels of protection are given based on two kinds of land use: sensitive land use and less
sensitive land use. Higher protection is generally applied to sensitive land use than to less sensitive
land use. Typical examples of land uses are residential areas (sensitive land use) and industrial areas
(less sensitive land use). The reason for the use of different levels of protection, when applying our
model, is that the instrumental values differ for the two kinds of land use. In other words, it is
assumed that in residential areas the sum of the instrumental values (ecosystem services, etc.) is
higher than in areas used for industrial purposes. An important aspect is that the intrinsic value may
be the same, i.e. a decision to change the land use does not affect the intrinsic value of the soil.
To conclude, to fulfil the intentions of the Swedish Environmental Code, it is not always sufficient to
only consider the ecosystem services when performing an ERA. The soil's intrinsic value and the
instrumental values it provides the whole ecosystem must also be taken into account in order to make
the assessment complete. It must be noted though that this does not automatically mean that such
values always are strong/high, but they should be considered.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Swedish Environmental Code; Miljöbalken. SFS 1998:808 (1998).
F. Hansson. “…to promote sustainable development…”. The expression “sustainable development” in the Swedish
Environmental Code as seen from the perspective of environmental ethics. Lund University (2014).
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC
(2005).
H. Rolston. Environmental Ethics. Temple University Press, Philadelphia (1988).