1. Introduction
Soil is often overlooked despite being a crucial component of the terrestrial environment. People often see it just as “dirt” and as an exploitable natural resource [1]. Moreover, the soil was, and still is not considered as relevant as other key environmental components although is one of the three fundamentals that ensure life on land: air, water and soil. What is hidden is the significance of soil to people’s daily lives and its key role in sustaining all life on dry land of the Earth. The “dirt” and “no value” perception of soil may contribute to the lack of public discussion and appreciation of soils in public life and, consequently, a political reluctance to pass laws to preserve and enhance soil health [2]. There is also a lack of emphasis on soils in education, highlighting the need to increase public awareness and societal engagement in sustainable soil management and soil protection, which has an impact in soil literacy.
The EU Mission ‘A Soil Deal for Europe’ (Mission Soil) is one of five missions funded under the EU Research and Innovation (R&I) Programme Horizon Europe. Its goal is to create 100 Living Labs and Lighthouses by 2030 to promote sustainable land and soil management in urban and rural areas. The mission’s goal is supported by eight objectives, including “Increasing soil literacy in society across Member States,” which aims to raise awareness of soil’s value, embed soil health in education, boost citizen engagement, and improve practitioner training. Soil literacy is also key to the transversal–operational objective “Engage with the soil user community and society at large” through actions like fostering education, activating municipalities and businesses, strengthening advisory services, promoting citizen-led stewardship, and connecting soil health to citizens’ values. The success of the Soil Mission depends on the response and action being taken by society, but the current low level of soil literacy is a major barrier to achieve significant soil health improvements.
The Soil Mission Implementation plan understands soil literacy as both a popular awareness about the importance of soil and specialised and practice-oriented knowledge related to achieving soil health [3]. A more detailed definition of what soil literacy entails has been provided by Johnson et al., 2020 [4]: a combination of attitudes, behaviours, and competencies required to make sound decisions that promote soil health and ultimately contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment.
Valuing soils as part of all aspects of the environment and daily life is key. This can be strongly supported by enabling the general public to have access to both general education on soil and targeted training for specialised needs [1]. However, purely scientific information about soils in itself will not trigger citizen action and involvement. Rather, increased soil literacy has to connect to people’s existing values, interests, and concerns. While some messages may be widely attractive (e.g., healthy soils underpinning the achievement of physical and mental health, beautiful and healthy landscapes, good-quality food), soil literacy should also be linked with specific and locally relevant concerns and should empower citizens to make a change [3].
Despite its importance, little prior work has considered the conceptualisation and measurement of soil literacy, as well as of its components, which could potentially lead to more informed and conscious decision-making by citizens towards healthier soils. Understanding the individual and community drivers that motivate people to interact with soil is crucial for informing policies aimed at facilitating initiatives that promote human–soil interaction, such as those within farming communities [4].
The Complexity Around Soil Literacy
Defining the meaning of soil is a “complex matter” as it is complex to define “soil health” and “soil literacy”. Within soil science, the definition of the above terms have changed over time. Beyond the field of soil scientists, different groups have different understandings of what soils are. The ways in which soils are known, represented, and understood are diverse. In different regions, farmers, foresters, government officials, soil researchers, or environmental NGOs know soil in different ways and attach different meanings to it [5].
There is also the historic context of how soil science has emerged and developed as a topic seeking relevance within the scientific community and governance spheres over the past one hundred years, which adds another level of complexity to the discussion. Accounts of the history of soil science usually locate the origins of the discipline in the late 1800 with Vasiliy Dokuchaev [6], then the first international soil science congresses and conferences in 1909, 1924, and 1927 [7]. Based on Dokuchaev’s work, Hans Jenny developed, in the 1940s, a conceptual model of soil formation factors. In the early 1900s, soil-related concepts started developing and being published, such as soil fertility, soil productivity, and soil conservation. Before the 1970s, soil knowledge was mainly related to agricultural practices, and as technologies started developing (e.g., mechanisation, chemicals, and modified plant crops, namely the “first green revolution” [8]), there was a shift in this concept. This shift was also reflected in the appearance of concepts like soil quality and soil protection in the 1970s [9]. As a result, soil science entered a period of legitimation crisis, which extended until around 2010 in connection with the discourse on soil carbon and climate change. Soil science has re-articulated its relevance in five different epistemic commitments along the years [10]:
Communicating to policymakers to find new ways to convey existing soil science knowledge to policymakers.
Internationalising soil science knowledge to create international bodies of soil science knowledge with a broad geographical scope.
Rethinking soil science research by using boundary concepts: soil scientists started using concepts like ecosystem services, policy cycles, or soil health to improve communication, interaction, and collaboration beyond traditional and agrocentric soil science (creation of soil ecology).
Introducing the ecosystem approach in soil-related research, an approach that studies soils as part of broader ecosystems with the aim to understand interactions within and beyond soils.
Developing regional scenarios for (agricultural and rarely forest and urban) soil management, the goal is to use soil management as a mean to tackle societal and environmental problems without losing sight of other soil functions and ecosystem services such as local food production or regional economic functions.
In accordance with these epistemic commitments, it could be observed that in the 1990s, new concepts like soil sustainability, resilience, and health were introduced. Meanwhile, the concept of soil security did not appear until 2013 [9].
The following figure summarizes the evolution of soil science, soil concepts, and the epistemic commitments in a timeline (Figure 1).
As mentioned before, by “soil literacy”, the EU Soil Mission recognises both a popular awareness about the importance of soil as well as specialised and practice-oriented knowledge related to achieving soil health [3]. By doing so, the Soil Mission seeks to establish a strong link between soil literacy and soil health. However, the main problem is that the lack of a consistent understanding of what soil is leads to complexities in defining soil health, which, in turn, influences the development of a concept for soil literacy.
The term “soil health” has a broader meaning and should be considered as an “umbrella” term incorporating many different dimensions beyond ecosystem services and human health. According to the proposal for a Soil Monitoring and Resilience directive, soil health means the physical, chemical, and biological condition of the soil, determining its capacity to function as a vital living system and to provide ecosystem services [1]. This definition only relates to the functional part of the soils and obscures the different understandings and contexts that offer the great diversity of what soil health may be. The definition needs to consider how it relates to different Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and other environmental and socio-economic factors. In that sense, the Soil Literacy Think Tank agrees on the need to expand the soil health concept beyond the anthropocentric idea related to ecosystem services. It advocates for recognizing soil as a living community from which humans benefit and which they nourish. For example, “Soil health means the physical, chemical and biological condition of the soil determining its capacity to function as a vital living system and to provide ecosystem services under different environmental and socio-economic driving forces etc.” This paradigm shift would involve moving from a purely anthropocentric utilitarian approach to one that is ecocentric and deontological, attributing inherent value to all soils.
As previously explained, soil science has moved from a very local and regional perspective, in which the main targets of soil literacy were farmers, foresters, and landowners, to a more global perspective that tries to tackle several environmental and societal challenges and where it deals with different target audiences. Until relatively recently, there has been a linear process between researchers, policymakers, and the public in which the sciences are seen as the sources of knowledge about the soil that need to be acted on by others such as policymakers or farmers. The linear model assumes that the main group with knowledge on how soils should be managed comprises the scientists. However, awareness of the value or importance of soil already exists amongst other different target audiences who observe soil and land degradation taking place. For instance, community-led initiatives (CLIs) challenge this linear model by integrating traditional ecological knowledge, local practices, and experiential learning. Through grassroots networks, CLIs expand soil literacy beyond academic and agricultural contexts, offering diverse, place-based perspectives that enrich both formal education and policy development [11].
From all of this, we can conclude that there is not a singular soil health idea to be transferred in soil literacy, but rather, due to the different viewpoints and management priorities of the target audience, there needs to be an adaptive approach to soil literacy, respectful of multiple perspectives and sources of knowledge. For instance, soil literacy for a farmer might be more practical with strong relational values, and for people living in metropolitan areas, soil literacy might be linked to urban sustainability practices.
The lack of soil literacy might not only be limited to citizens, youth, students, or farmers but also extend to policymakers or planners, for example.
The Think Tank’s preliminary desk research did not yield many results related to studies on the current status of soil literacy, or linked topics such as soil awareness raising, in Europe. This can already indicate that further research in the field is needed. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning the work already completed by soil networks like the Global, European, and subregional Soil Partnerships on soil awareness and capacity building, including their collection and production of soil awareness raising and educational materials and the events they organise. Similarly, European projects such as LOESS, HuMUS, PREPSOIL, CURIOSOIL, ECHO, Links4Soils, and NBSOIL work to collect the best policies and practices around soil health and soil-related training and courses that are relevant for building the basis of knowledge around soil literacy. As relevant are the outcomes of over 20 projects under the EU LIFE programme between 2012 and 2019; see the LIFE Soil Ex-Post Study—Final Report [12].
Case studies outside of Europe may also serve as examples of soil literacy assessment. For example, a soil literacy survey was conducted [4] among a population of 3661 school children aged between 13 and 15 years in three African countries, Ghana, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, to measure their “Attitudes, Behaviours and Competencies” to soil, which they termed “ABC”. The survey showed that although students were generally equipped with a good attitude to (overall 52% positive) and behaviour towards soil (overall 60% engagement), they had little competency as to how to improve soil health (overall 23% knowledge). For example, fewer than 35% of respondents across all countries knew that soil is living. And fewer than 13% of students were aware of the important role of soil in climate change mitigation.
The study was supported by the ABC of Soil Literacy Report from the University of Durham [4], which, as mentioned at the beginning of this document, provides a first definition of what “soil literacy” entails: a combination of Attitudes (Heart), Behaviours (Hands), and Competencies (Head) required to make sound decisions that promote soil health and ultimately contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment (Figure 2). Through acquired knowledge, people can develop the right attitudes, behaviours, and competencies, improving soil management practices and interactions, thus increasing soil health. Additionally, the report offers approaches to measure soil literacy levels targeting school children in three African countries. This is achieved through a soil literacy toolkit including a survey questionnaire, guidance on how to select samples of the target population, and advice on preparing fieldwork teams.
In terms of engagement, when developing effective soil literacy programs, it is recommended to integrate lessons from both sustainability-focused communities as well as locally/regionally relevant knowledge on soils, landscape, land use, etc. Embedding such practical, community-based learning models into soil literacy initiatives can foster a deeper, hands-on understanding of soil health.
In this sense, the Fifth National Climate Assessment—the US Government’s pre-eminent report on climate change impacts, risks, and responses—indicates a series of processes and actions to improve the effectiveness of engagement efforts and accessibility to climate information [13]. These can also be applied to soil literacy:
Co-produced or co-created research is a promising approach for soil literacy. This type of research defines non-scientific individuals as experts within their specific context, integrating community-based and scientific insights and solutions. However, integration can fail if power dynamics, goals, trust, and compensation within research teams and epistemologies are not equitable.
Establishing clear, measurable objectives with well-defined benchmarks or desired outcomes leads to more effective communication products and processes; bringing key stakeholders into the process at this early stage can improve effectiveness.
To inform real-world decision-making, information needs to be calibrated to the needs of target audiences; importantly, communicating relevant information sometimes involves translating science into understandable, accessible, and actionable language whereas in other cases, it involves incorporating diverse forms of knowledge into communication products and efforts.
Efforts that have been successful in engaging people on climate change across existing ideological and cultural divides generally do so by addressing the things people care about most (this links to the care network model mentioned in previous paragraph).
Including intended target audiences throughout the process of developing communication products both promotes procedural justice and increases the likelihood that such efforts meet shared goals.
Engagement outcomes also strongly reflect the relationships and levels of trust between intended audiences and messengers. The use of trusted messengers increases the acceptance and use of climate change risk information.
Pervasive uncertainty surrounding climate change continues to be a major challenge to communication (in our case, soil health).
2. Materials and Methods
The Soil Literacy Think Tank started its work with the identification of the relevant stakeholders, followed by their engagement and discussions for the identification of knowledge gaps. In May 2023, a screening process was started by ICLEI European Secretariat to identify potential stakeholders working on the topic of soil literacy at EU level. The stakeholders identified belonged to the four target group areas defined in the quadruple helix model: research, governance, civil society, and businesses. By October 2023, nine stakeholders had agreed to become members of the Soil Literacy Think Tank (a group of experts on the topic). The Soil Literacy Think Tank now comprises members covering a broad range of backgrounds, from soil researchers and university teachers to environmental social scientists, soil consultants, and communications experts. All the groups are represented except for business/industry. The Think Tank is designed to be dynamic and to grow and change over the lifetime of the SOLO project, and therefore, the screening process is ongoing and recruitment to the Think Tank will remain open.
The first official online meeting of the Soil Literacy Think Tank took place in October 2023, during which Think Tank members and goals were introduced. During this meeting the members agreed that soil literacy is not well defined under the Soil Mission, generating a challenge to identify gaps, bottlenecks, and activities to address it. Based on this, the members decided to meet again to have a brainstorming session around the concept of soil literacy. This took place in November 2023 and was structured around the content of several scientific papers suggested by the Think Tank members. This information, together with the main discussion points, is synthesised in the present paper. Future steps might include discussions around the educational part of soil literacy based on the collected resources and the feedback received during the review process.
Additionally, during the SOLO project conference in Barcelona in November 2023, the Soil Literacy Think Tank leaders had the opportunity to interact and discuss the preliminary results in a round-table format with members from the other SOLO think tanks. The inputs collected during this session have also been included in this scoping document.
In 2024, desk research of several papers took place. The main objective of this desk research was the identification of research and innovation knowledge gaps related to soil literacy. As a secondary objective, this review also collected information on the actions and bottlenecks mentioned in the records related to the research and innovation knowledge gaps.
The process began on 22 May 2024 with a comprehensive search for relevant literature using Publish or Perish software 8th version, which facilitated the retrieval of academic papers from Google Scholar. The removal of duplicates was performed automatically by the software. The search was performed using a predefined search string (based on the concept of soil literacy):
“soil” AND (“literacy” OR “capacity building” OR “training” OR “perception” OR “values” OR “awareness” OR “engagement” OR “education” OR “citizen science”)
And inclusion criteria were as follows: English language; Open-access; Papers from 2010 ongoing; Specifically related to the topic of soil literacy, based on the search string terms ensuring the relevance of the selected studies to the research objectives.
The screening process was divided into four stages:
Identification: A total of 898 records were identified from the Google Scholar database using Publish or Perish software.
Screening: A total of 252 of the records, roughly 30%, were screened based on title and abstract relevance. The remaining 646 records will be screened in 2025.
Eligibility: Following the initial screening, 64 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility against the inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Included: Finally, 23 studies were included in the analysis forming the basis for the findings in terms of research and innovation knowledge gaps, actions, and bottlenecks.
Results: Total records identified: 898; Records screened: 252; Full-text articles assessed for eligibility: 64; Studies included in final analysis: 23.
This analysis was supplemented with online meetings with the Think Tank members to cross-check the relevance of the found research knowledge gaps. For Think Tank members who could not attend the online meeting in July 2024, a Google survey was shared with a list of the identified knowledge gaps so they could also share their impressions. This feedback was considered to cluster or rename several of the knowledge gaps. Together with the in-person meeting in Sofia, Bulgaria, all the conversations provided highly relevant suggestions to the initial list, ending up with a total of 18 knowledge gaps; methodology is presented in Figure 3.
3. Results
The Soil Literacy Think Tank has identified a series of key knowledge gaps that reflect critical areas where further work is needed to either generate new knowledge or improve the application of existing insights. To better orient future efforts, each knowledge gap has been classified into one of two categories: Knowledge development gaps, knowledge gaps that require generating new information or understanding by research or innovation, inclusive of both natural and social sciences’ and humanities’ contributions. Knowledge application gaps, referring to challenges related to the translation of existing knowledge into practice, policies, or behaviour, where the barriers lie in implementation rather than discovery.
This classification helps distinguish between the need to “know more” and the need to “do more with what we know.” The selected top 10 knowledge gaps presented in the table below (Table 1) span educational, cultural, institutional, and communication-related dimensions of soil literacy. For each of the top 10 gaps, descriptions highlighting the main research or implementation challenges are presented, highlighting why they are critical for advancing soil literacy and promoting healthier soils. The descriptions also explore the societal or sectoral relevance of the gaps, often touching upon the specific target audiences or systems they affect. Together, they offer a roadmap to guide research and innovation efforts towards more inclusive, effective, and actionable pathways for fostering soil awareness and stewardship across different societal groups.
Finally, a table with the full list of 18 knowledge gaps is presented in Appendix A. Actions and bottlenecks related to them are also included in the table: Actions: Actions encompass a spectrum of technical, social, and economic strategies, approaches, measures, and/or solutions aimed at addressing identified knowledge gaps. These actions are aligned with the R&I priorities outlined in the Mission framework. They serve as the means to achieve the research and innovation goals set forth by the Commission. Bottlenecks: Bottlenecks are barriers that hinder a successful implementation of suggested actions to solve both types of knowledge gaps.
3.1. Further Research Is Required to Develop and Validate Frameworks That Integrate Soil as Core Component into Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) Competence Models
There is a critical need to integrate soil more systematically into Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) competence models to strengthen soil literacy and promote healthier soils. Soil offers a rich entry point to sustainability education by connecting with the five core principles proposed for effective sustainability learning. First, soil exemplifies the valuing of “biocultural diversity”, highlighting the parallels between soil biodiversity and human cultural diversity. Second, it supports “sensitizing all senses” through direct, hands-on interaction, fostering a deeper emotional and experiential connection with the natural environment. Third, soil provides a basis for “recognizing place”, grounding education in local geographical, historical, ecological, and cultural contexts. Fourth, it cultivates “interconnectedness”, demonstrating the complex relationships among soil organisms, plants, animals, and abiotic elements that sustain ecosystems. Finally, soil serves to promote “embracing practical experience” as engaging physically with soil strengthens positive environmental behaviours and personal investment in sustainability [14]. Despite this strong potential, current ESD frameworks often fail to systematically incorporate soil as a cross-cutting theme.
Advancing soil literacy requires interdisciplinary and innovative educational practices that emphasise the critical role of soil in sustainability. It is essential to train scientists and educators to effectively communicate the importance of soil across all levels of education, fostering a broader understanding of its value. Moreover, it is necessary to recognise the complexity of soil science and the need to integrate it with other disciplines to create more comprehensive and cohesive educational frameworks. This will foster a more holistic understanding of soil’s role in sustainability [4].
Related Questions: How can soil as a core component be effectively integrated into interdisciplinary educational frameworks to teach sustainability concepts across diverse educational settings?
3.2. More Research Is Needed for Understanding the Ecosystem Services Delivered by Different Soil Types for Key Actor Groups to Improve Targeted Communication
Soils are essential for maintaining ecosystem functions critical to human well-being, such as nutrient cycling, water filtration, and carbon sequestration. However, despite their importance, there is a significant knowledge gap among key social actors regarding the services provided by soils. Understanding the link between soil health and human life is critical to promoting sustainable soil management practices. Effective soil education programmes tailored to specific groups can help bridge this gap by demonstrating the tangible benefits of healthy soils [15]. Increasing public and policymaker awareness of the vital role that soils play is fundamental to the implementation of effective soil management strategies.
Psychological barriers often prevent individuals from adopting pro-environmental behaviours. According to Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002 [16], factors such as a lack of environmental awareness, social norms, and a sense of alienation from nature contribute to this gap between knowledge and action. These barriers can be particularly challenging when communicating the importance of soil health as people may not recognise the direct impact of soil degradation on their daily lives. Krasny & Tidball, 2012 [17], highlight the potential of community-based education and participatory approaches, such as urban gardening and soil restoration projects, to overcome these barriers. These initiatives not only educate participants but also foster a deeper connection to the environment, which is essential for promoting long-term sustainable behaviours. Additionally, Hallett et al., 2017 [18], emphasise the importance of using innovative tools such as social media, storytelling, and interactive apps to engage diverse audiences and effectively communicate the value of soils.
With the increasing focus on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs), soils are becoming a key topic. Understanding the functions of soil is important for addressing global challenges and promoting sustainability [19]. However, research is still needed to further explore the knowledge gaps related to soil services delivered to different societal groups. As indicated by Brevik et al., 2022 [15], there is an opportunity to reevaluate and redesign soil curricula by focusing on soil functions instead of the conventional emphasis on soil properties. This approach would prioritize the practical roles soil plays in ecosystems and human systems, fostering a deeper understanding of its applications and value. However, this needs to be accompanied by an analysis of the current level of soil literacy in different sectors, such as agriculture and urban planning, for developing targeted education programmes and communication campaigns.
Related Questions: How do soils contribute to ecosystem services relevant to key actor groups, and how can these benefits be effectively communicated to enhance awareness and decision-making?
3.3. More Research Is Needed for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Outreach Efforts Aimed at Engaging Primary and Secondary School Students, as Well as the General Public, in Soil Health Topics and Their Impact on Attracting New Students to University-Level Soil Health Programs
The need for research to evaluate the effectiveness of outreach efforts aimed at engaging primary and secondary school students, as well as the general public, in soil health topics is becoming increasingly urgent. Soil health is fundamental to agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and climate change resilience, yet it remains poorly understood by the general public and is often underrepresented in formal education systems. This disconnect is especially concerning as soil degradation continues to accelerate in many parts of the globe, with significant social and environmental consequences. Outreach programs offer a potential remedy, but their impact on raising awareness, changing attitudes, and influencing academic and career aspirations in soil science has not been comprehensively assessed.
In broader science education, outreach initiatives have demonstrated measurable success in enhancing engagement and academic interest among students. For instance, programs like “Shadow a Scientist” and “Present Your PhD Thesis to a 12-Year-Old” have been shown to boost students’ enthusiasm for science, enhance their understanding of complex concepts, and foster interest in pursuing related academic pathways. Such initiatives also provide a two-fold benefit by improving the communication skills of participating scientists [20].
However, despite these proven models in other fields, soil science has not fully leveraged or evaluated similar outreach strategies. Research on the specific outcomes of these programs could offer valuable insights into best practices for enhancing soil literacy and engagement.
The importance of addressing this gap is highlighted by the declining enrolment in soil-related university programs globally. Sources such as Havlin et al., 2010 [21] and Collins, 2008 [22] have discussed systemic challenges facing soil science education, including outdated curricula, insufficient public engagement, and the low visibility of soil-related careers in primary and secondary education. For example, Havlin emphasises the importance of curricular revisions and targeted outreach in reversing enrolment declines, citing successful initiatives at institutions like California Polytechnic State University, where program updates led to a notable increase in student enrolment. Collins, on the other hand, highlights the broader, national, and international scale of this issue, highlighting how declining undergraduate numbers weaken graduate programs and reduce the influx of professionals into soil science careers.
In conclusion, targeted research addressing this knowledge gap is essential for advancing soil literacy. Such studies would provide evidence-based guidance for designing outreach programs that effectively engage young learners and the general public while inspiring interest in soil-related careers.
Related Questions: What is the long-term impact of soil health outreach programs on primary and secondary school students’ interest in pursuing soil science or related university-level education?
3.4. More Research Is Needed to Find Suitable Means to Promote Understanding of the Key Factors That Enable and/or Prevent Foresters, Farmers, Urban Planners, Civil Engineers, and Other Actors When It Comes to Considering Soil Health and Adopting Soil Conservation Practices
A better understanding of the factors that lead soil actors to adopt soil, land, and water conservation practices is critical for the development of successful interventions to promote sustainable soil management practices. Mango et al., 2017 [23], provided a comprehensive analysis of such factors in the Chinyanja Triangle region of Africa. The study showed that factors such as the age and education level of the household head, agricultural extension, and the membership of farmer groups are critical to awareness and the adoption of conservation practices. These findings suggest that social inclusion and knowledge transfer play a central role in motivating soil actors to adopt soil conservation practices. In Europe, Fantappiè et al., 2020 [24], emphasise that economic and operational benefits—such as productivity increases and cost reductions—are key drivers for the adoption of soil conservation practices. In Sicily, farmers who perceived management benefits were more likely to perceive positive environmental benefits, suggesting a close link between economic efficiency and environmental awareness. Lavergne et al., 2024 [25], draw attention to another important issue: the underrepresentation of studies on the Global South, particularly on environmental issues. This knowledge gap could affect the development of global solutions to soil degradation if certain regions are not sufficiently included. Furthermore, Charzyński et al., 2022 [26], highlight the need for educational programmes to focus more on concrete solutions to soil degradation problems in order to create a deeper awareness and commitment to sustainable practices among farmers. This suggests that both cultural and practice-based approaches are needed to promote the adoption of sustainable soil conservation measures.
Nonetheless, soil degradation is a multifaceted problem influenced by activities in many sectors, including urban development, forestry, infrastructure construction, and industrial activities. For example, urban expansion is a growing threat. Research by Barbero-Sierra et al., 2013 [27], highlights that “urban sprawl in peri-urban areas leads to the fragmentation of fertile soils, reducing their productivity and ecological functions”. This is of particular concern as urban settlements often expand into areas of high soil fertility, making “urban sprawl the most active agent of desertification in Spain”. Soil sealing—covering soil with impermeable materials for roads, buildings, and other infrastructure—is one of the most devastating threats to soil ecosystem services, effectively halting critical functions such as water filtration, carbon sequestration, and nutrient cycling.
Unsustainable forestry practices, such as clear-cutting, contribute to soil erosion, the loss of organic matter, and the disruption of soil structure, increasing the risk of landslides and reducing biodiversity. According to Pimentel & Kounang, 1998 [28], “deforestation and poor land management practices accelerate soil erosion rates, often beyond the natural regeneration capacity of the soil”.
The effects of industrial pollution are also critical. Research by Nagajyoti et al., 2010 [29], shows that “heavy metal contamination from industrial activities leads to deterioration of soil microbial activity, nutrient cycling and plant productivity, resulting in long-term soil degradation”.
Given these multiple threats, it is essential to adopt a holistic approach to soil protection that addresses the drivers of soil degradation across all sectors. This includes not only promoting sustainable agricultural practices but also promoting sustainable urban planning, responsible forest management, and the development of green infrastructure to mitigate soil sealing, erosion, and pollution. By broadening the focus of key factors that enable and/or prevent soil protection efforts, we can more effectively safeguard soil health as a critical resource for environmental resilience, climate regulation, and human well-being.
Related Questions: What socio-economic and cultural factors influence and prevent the adoption of soil conservation practices by farmers? How can education be adapted to promote and enable the adoption of sustainable practices?
3.5. More Research Is Needed on the Development of Effective Pedagogical Strategies to Foster a Deeper Understanding of Soil’s Importance: These Strategies Should Promote Critical Thinking and Be State-of-the-Art, Hands-On, and Experiential
In addition to the lack of integration of soil science and management practices within the educational curricula, traditional teaching approaches are often relying on passive learning methods that primarily involve receiving information without active participation and are only able to provide basic knowledge.. These approaches fail to develop critical thinking and problem solving skills in students, which are required to understand and address the complexity of soil-related issues and processes [30]. The complexity of soil science derives from the need to understand the interaction of the different components like the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and anthroposphere, requiring students and practitioners to have the knowledge to understand these interactions while also possessing the skills to collaborate across the various disciplines [31]. Therefore, the study of soil science requires contextualised, holistic, practical, and experiential learning approaches centred around living soil as a way to foster a deeper ecological understanding and improvement of sustainability literacy [14].
Practical and hands-on experience in soil science teaching can be understood in two ways: The first one refers to more practical approaches in the learning process of students, focusing on innovative pedagogical techniques like Problem-Based Learning (PBL), Soil Skills (SSK), or the Soil Judging Contest (SJC). The second approach focuses on more experience-based and hands-on methods, in which students get the opportunity to directly observe and interact with soil.
Additionally, inquiry-based learning approaches, such as Soil Skills (SSK) and the Soil Judging Contest (SJC), can enhance the engagement of students, creating dynamic learning environments. SJCs are programs based on competition; teams will evaluate soil properties and features (e.g., soil texture, structure, colour) and make informed judgements based on their knowledge and observations. Meanwhile, in the case of SSK, students have to address real case studies by applying interdisciplinary approaches, considering the relations between soil, water, landscape, and community to solve problems [31].
Moreover, the use of hands-on and interactive activities with soil has an advantage as experiences associated with unstructured activity in a natural setting can positively influence environmental behaviour and can produce meaningful relationships with nature and the environment, especially for children [14].
This can also be implemented through project-based learning approaches like fieldwork or field trips, including soil sampling and the measuring of parameters, which generates higher levels of student engagement and a better understanding of soil as an ecosystem component and how it can be related to other disciplines [32]. The use of practical and interactive experience approaches can further foster awareness and understanding of the value of soil, increasing soil stewardship [14]. Studies have indicated that early interaction with natural environments plays a crucial role in shaping social engagement, well-being, and lifelong connections with nature. Children who regularly experience nature tend to be more active, engage more with their communities, and develop higher self-esteem and resilience to stress. These benefits extend into adulthood, fostering continued participation in social and environmental initiatives [33].
Related Questions: What pedagogical strategies can be integrated to improve the understanding of soils in students of different age groups? How can pedagogical strategies be adapted depending on student/school locations (students from urban or rural areas, living near mountains or plains, agricultural practices around them...)?
3.6. More Research Is Needed for Fostering the Connection Between Soil Science Knowledge and Soil Stewardship: Instead of Focusing on Why the Gap Exists (Soil Stewardship Paradox), Studies Should Explore How, Where, and When Soil Knowledge Contributes to Responsible Soil Care
There is a growing need for research that bridges the gap between soil science knowledge and soil stewardship. The idea of “stewardship” involves the conscientious and responsible management of resources entrusted to one’s care. In this sense, a mix of factors such as socio-economic conditions, policy frameworks, cultural perceptions, and education systems play significant roles in determining whether knowledge is translated into action [34].
The study by Neaman et al., 2024 [35], pointed out that agricultural professionals, particularly those with academic or urban backgrounds, may possess extensive technical soil knowledge without a corresponding level of care for soil health. This disconnect calls for further research to clarify the relationship between knowledge acquisition and stewardship behaviours. Additionally, studies on environmental knowledge and behaviour, such as those by Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002 [16], have illustrated this “knowledge-action gap” across environmental fields. They suggest that psychological, social, and contextual factors heavily influence whether knowledge translates to stewardship behaviours. However, while much focus has been placed on the reasons behind the soil stewardship paradox—a disparity between knowledge without a corresponding sense of care and care without a corresponding level of knowledge [35]—less attention has been given to understanding how, where, and when soil knowledge can be effectively applied to promote sustainable soil management practices.
Identifying the specific contexts and conditions in which different forms of soil knowledge (e.g., scientific, traditional, or experiential) lead to responsible soil care would contribute significantly to fostering a culture of stewardship and ensuring that soil management practices are both effective and sustainable. Furthermore, understanding the pathways that link soil knowledge to action could uncover mechanisms for improving the adoption of sustainable soil practices.
Related Questions: How can different forms of soil knowledge (scientific, historical traditional, experiential) contribute to responsible soil care? What are the specific contexts and conditions in which soil knowledge leads to effective stewardship practices?
3.7. More Research Is Needed for Assessing How Local Conditions Affect the Long-Term Success of Citizen Science Initiatives in Soil Health, in Terms of Scientific Data Collection and Public Education Goals and Other Outcomes
In terms of soil health, there is a lack of targets and indicators for its monitoring in the global context as well as a lack of a common method, or a unified protocol that can be applied. Additionally, soil monitoring presents another degree of complexity as soil quality presents a high variability in cities across short distances, making regulation difficult. An extra challenge is the lack of recognition from both policy makers and the general public of the importance of healthy soils as an environmental asset of equal importance as clean air and water. Participatory approaches can play a key role to engage the general public in scientific inquiries about soils and soil health, which can cultivate awareness and soil values [36].
It is important to keep in mind that integrating citizen science into soil health initiatives presents both opportunities and challenges, particularly in ensuring the scientific validity of data collection and the effectiveness of proposed remediation methods. While citizen engagement can enhance data collection and public awareness, there is a risk that misinterpretations of scientific facts and the promotion of unproven soil management practices may undermine long-term outcomes. For example, certain remediation techniques, despite being scientifically discredited, continue to gain traction among non-experts. Addressing this challenge requires structured collaboration between soil experts and citizen initiatives, fostering mutual understanding through capacity-building efforts, transparent communication, and scientifically sound methodologies. Further research is needed to assess how local conditions influence the success of such collaborations and to develop strategies that align citizen-driven efforts with evidence-based soil health management.
Participatory approaches can be classified into three categories based on the phase of involvement of participants or the general public: contributory, collaborative, or co-created. Contributory approaches are designed by scientists, and participants are used to contribute to data. In collaborative approaches, participants can also help refine the project design or analyse the data. In co-created approaches, participants are involved from the initial design and conceptualisation of the research question [37].
A study highlighted by the European Joint Programme SOIL emphasised the underutilised role of participatory citizen science in advancing soil health. The research showcased how engaging the public not only enhances data collection but also fosters a broader commitment to sustainable soil management [38]. In addition, Hou et al., 2020 [39], highlight the potential of emerging technologies, including 5G telecommunications, big data, and machine learning, to revolutionize soil data collection and analysis.
In general, further research is needed to assess how local conditions influence the success of such collaborations and to develop strategies that align citizen-driven efforts with evidence-based soil health management and how they can effectively contribute to data collection and public education goals.
Related Questions: How do local environmental, social, and policy conditions influence the long-term success of citizen science initiatives in soil health, particularly in ensuring scientifically valid data collection and effective public education? What strategies can enhance the integration of robust citizen science into soil health monitoring while ensuring scientific rigor, preventing misinformation, and fostering productive collaboration between soil experts and the public?
3.8. More Research Is Needed for Improving Soil Health Communication Strategies That Prioritize Cultural and Social Aspects of Soils Significant to Diverse Actors
Understanding effective strategies for soil science communication and outreach is essential for fostering meaningful engagement with diverse social actors. Brevik et al., 2022 [15], highlight the importance of integrating cultural and social dimensions in soil education to enhance public connectivity to soil, suggesting that storytelling and social media engagement can resonate with non-experts by linking soil to quality of life and cultural heritage. This finding highlights the need to align communication strategies with the cultural and social contexts of different audiences, using concepts like soil health and terroir, which make soil science more accessible and meaningful.
Research indicates that individuals who are dissatisfied with their financial situation are more likely to express scepticism toward eco-social policies and prioritise welfare-related concerns over environmental challenges. This suggests that lower-income groups may perceive climate and environmental action as a less immediate necessity compared to economic security. Conversely, as financial stability improves, individuals are more inclined toward environmental advocacy as they can afford to prioritise post-materialistic values. However, financial satisfaction alone does not necessarily lead to stronger eco-social engagement [40].
Additionally, trust in public institutions and egalitarian values appear to be more decisive in shaping environmental attitudes than factors such as income, education, or place of residence. This highlights the importance of addressing ideological and perceptual divides when fostering broad-based environmental engagement and communication strategies [40].
Furthermore, both socio-economic disadvantage—characterised by lower education and income levels—as well as spatial marginalisation, such as of those living in rural or economically declining areas, should be better recognised in the design and implementation of climate and environmental policies in the EU. Ensuring equitable access to knowledge and opportunities is crucial to fostering inclusive participation across all societal groups [41].
Effective communication on soil health requires strategies that resonate with diverse audiences and foster meaningful connections to the environment. Evidence from the GEN Ecovillage Impact Assessment highlights the importance of participatory, narrative, and experiential communication methods [42]. Ecovillages, traditional or intentional communities that aim to become more environmentally sustainable, show that soil health messages are most effective when embedded in personal stories, cultural practices, and community experiences. The study noted that “76% of ecovillages regularly engage in educational activities related to environmental sustainability, using both formal and informal channels”. One key strategy is to use storytelling as a tool for environmental communication. By sharing stories about local food systems, land regeneration, and community resilience, complex ecological concepts become more accessible. These approaches can be researched and adapted to soil literacy campaigns to foster emotional connections and lasting awareness.
However, current approaches are often limited in addressing how empirical and scientific knowledge can be communicated and integrated in ways that foster genuine engagement. As Krzywoszynska, A., 2019 [43], explains, soil science communication frequently overlooks the knowledge and meaning-making practices within local communities. Her work on sustainable soil management in England reveals that a focus on scientific knowledge alone can isolate local, experiential understandings of soil and calls for strategies that consider these community-rooted insights.
Furthermore, Krasny and Tidball, 2012 [17], explore how civic ecology practices provide a model for community-centred stewardship, illustrating the importance of grounding environmental communication within local, culturally relevant practices. In this context, soil communication must not only inform but also foster connections that enable diverse stakeholders to see their roles in soil stewardship. These insights point to a significant knowledge gap in soil science outreach: few studies have explored how communication strategies might effectively initiate step-by-step dialogues that bridge scientific and local knowledge frameworks.
Addressing this gap may aid in developing inclusive, context-sensitive communication strategies that better support sustainable soil management practices across diverse regions and communities.
Related Questions: What strategies can create dialogue between empirical, practical, and scientific knowledge about soils to engage diverse social actors? How can local knowledge be integrated into soil science communication to foster connections between different social actors and produce stewardship?
3.9. More Research Is Needed to Identify the Key Factors That Stimulate Instructors to Adopt New and Inspiring Teaching Methods with Regard to Soil Education
Soil science education faces the challenge of developing innovative teaching methods that both convey specialised knowledge and engage a broader audience from various disciplines. While Brevik et al., 2022 [15], highlight the need to organise content in ways that combine in-depth knowledge with interdisciplinary perspectives, studies investigating how educators can be motivated to implement these methods remain sparse. The integration of practice-oriented approaches, such as experiential learning, emphasised by Williams and Brown, 2011 [14], offers an opportunity to make complex soil topics tangible and to underscore their significance for issues such as climate adaptation, biodiversity, and human health.
Particularly, the idea of presenting soil not solely as a scientific subject but as a nexus between ecological and social systems underscores the relevance of interdisciplinary approaches. Brevik et al., 2022 [15], stress that making soil knowledge accessible to students from other disciplines is crucial for raising awareness of soil’s importance in global sustainability challenges. However, educators often face practical challenges such as time and resource constraints, which make it difficult to integrate innovative methods into their teaching practices. Krzic et al., 2024 [44], demonstrate how incorporating the concept of “Soil Health” into curricula in Canada can strengthen the connection between soil science and sustainability education, yet also reveal the practical barriers that hinder educators from broadly implementing these concepts.
Furthermore, there is insufficient clarity on which resources and incentives would most effectively support educators. While practical, hands-on approaches such as field studies and the use of soil biocrusts (de Lima and Rojas, 2022 [45]) demonstrate significant potential, questions remain about how to embed these methods into interdisciplinary frameworks. Field, D., 2017 [46] proposes deepening soil understanding through concepts such as “knowing soil, knowing about soil, being aware of soil” across different levels of education. This could not only achieve specialised learning objectives but also enhance the broader relevance and acceptance of soil topics. Combining practice-oriented and interdisciplinary approaches thus represents a promising avenue for advancing soil science education. However, there is a lack of systematic studies exploring how these approaches can be effectively implemented, the factors influencing educators’ acceptance of such methods, and ways to overcome practical barriers.
Related Questions: What factors influence the willingness of educators to adopt practice-oriented and interdisciplinary teaching methods in soil science education? What educational resources or incentives are most effective in promoting the adoption of innovative teaching methods? How can practical barriers, such as time and resource constraints, be overcome to support the implementation of these approaches?
3.10. More Research Is Needed for Creating Educational Materials Tailored to Different Educational Levels and Neurodivergent People to Encourage Student Interest, Curiosity and Engagement
Developing educational materials tailored to diverse educational levels and to individual needs (e.g., neurodivergent individuals) is essential for fostering student engagement. Neurodivergent students, including those with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), often encounter systemic barriers in traditional educational settings, which can impede their learning experiences and engagement [47].
Despite this, the existing studies have often lacked comprehensive strategies for adapting curricula to accommodate diverse learning preferences and sensory sensitivities, which are crucial for effective engagement. Additionally, there is still a lack of understanding regarding how such efforts not only impact immediate learning processes but also influence academic success, well-being, successful transitions, and life outcomes beyond higher education [48].
This research gap is especially relevant for all students at different education levels, from young learners in primary education to adults with advanced knowledge. In early education, structured and concrete learning materials help build a strong foundation. As students move through secondary and higher education, learning becomes more abstract and complex to encourage critical thinking and independence.
When it comes to soil education, there is a lack of standardised and adaptable materials across these levels. While resources exist, such as the British Society of Soil Science’s educational materials or the Soils 4 Teachers platform, they are not widely integrated into curricula and vary in content and accessibility. This inconsistency creates gaps in soil literacy, making it difficult to ensure that students at all levels gain a comprehensive understanding of soil’s role in environmental and societal systems. Developing structured, adaptable, and standardised soil education materials tailored to different learner needs and levels is essential for improving engagement and learning outcomes.
Related Questions: What strategies can be used to develop standardised and inclusive soil education materials that accommodate diverse learning needs and levels, including those of neurodivergent students?
4. Discussion
The findings of this scoping work confirm that soil literacy remains an underdeveloped but essential component in achieving soil health and broader environmental sustainability goals. Despite increased attention through initiatives such as the EU Soil Mission, this paper has highlighted persistent knowledge gaps that mirror concerns raised in previous research regarding the fragmented understanding and implementation of soil-related education, communication, and stewardship practices.
One of the main contributions of this work is the structured classification of knowledge gaps into knowledge development gaps and knowledge application gaps, providing a clearer strategic roadmap for advancing soil literacy.
The results further confirm that soil literacy cannot be treated as a monolithic concept but must be approached as an adaptive framework shaped by cultural, social, economic, and ecological contexts. This observation is consistent with earlier findings that stressed the necessity of acknowledging multiple ways of knowing and relating to soil. Awareness-raising efforts must thus build upon pre-existing local and experiential knowledge rather than imposing a purely scientific framing.
Moreover, the strong linkage of the identified knowledge gaps to the Behaviours (Hands) and Competencies (Head) dimensions of the ABC framework shows that while knowledge acquisition remains important, the greater challenge lies in fostering action and practical engagement. This echoes the broader sustainability education field, where the gap between knowledge and pro-environmental behaviour has been widely documented.
Soil literacy should seek to contribute to the creation of a new form of moral agency (concern for soil or soil stewardship) that would foster voluntary action (care for soil) and the implementation of mandatory and clear measures to secure soils (soil protection). A promising pathway for this is through linking responsibility for soils with already articulated governance objectives such as reducing carbon emissions, ensuring food security, securing a functional environment, and/or land take limitation [49]. A systemic and holistic approach to soils ensures a robust soil literacy by acknowledging the interrelation between soil and other crucial areas such as water management, circular economy, biodiversity, land use, and human and environmental health. As such, healthy soils are capable of providing a number of ecosystem services that support the achievement of the SDGs and enhancing health. For instance, the One Health concept (an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems) can be instrumental in establishing a connection between human health, biodiversity, and environmental health, encompassing soil.
We need to understand that most people already have knowledge of soils and about soils although this knowledge may be different to scientific understanding. We also need to acknowledge that different forms of soil knowledge, and different levels of soil knowledge, exist unequally among the different groups and decision makers whose actions have direct or indirect impacts on soil health. Soil literacy should build upon this pre-existing knowledge and values around soils and find ways to build on actions that can lead to “healthy soils” in a just and equitable manner. In this sense, a care network model can play a key role, in which an initial attentiveness to one aspect of soils leads to a further attentiveness to other interconnected aspects. For example, farmers’ attentiveness to soil structure can lead to an attentiveness to soil biota and result in changes to land management practices so that the needs of soil biota are respected. Attentiveness can thus have a transformative effect on human–soil relations, leading, for example, to a questioning of models of land use that neglect the needs of soil organisms [49].
An important implication arising from this analysis is the need to address soil literacy at multiple scales and differentiate it between sectors, disciplines, priorities, and age groups. One example of how this could be accomplished comes from the concept of ‘Learning for Sustainability (LfS)’ education or Education for Sustainability (ESD). The work is based on the green competence framework from the JRC’s GreenComp document [50]. The JRC defines 12 broad competence areas clustered on different knowledge, skills, and attitude levels. Merging both competence frameworks with the European Green Deal (e.g.,Farm to Fork strategy ), different competence areas were developed, starting from a primitive level of knowledge, skills, and attitudes to more advanced concepts. The Horizon Europe projects GreenSCENT and EC4Clim have contributed to the further refinement, expansion, and enhancement of the Green Competence Framework (GreenComp). GreenSCENT broadened the framework by aligning all competencies with the pillars of the EU Green Deal, ensuring a comprehensive approach to sustainability. Meanwhile, EC4Clim employed a multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and participatory process to develop and validate a European Competence Framework (ECF) for transformative change. These efforts have strengthened the applicability and relevance of GreenComp, supporting its role in fostering sustainability competencies across sectors like soil.
If some competence areas can be delineated, a target audience could then be segmented by age, interest, educational background, roles, and values, e.g., kindergarten, schools, youth (university, experts), or public officers. The focus would be on creating competence-based and not just content-based curricula and training programmes, following a progressive multi-level approach.
Future Research Directions
Building on the identified gaps and the broader context of soil literacy challenges, the following future research directions are proposed: Further conceptual development: Strengthen the Attitudes (Heart) component of soil literacy, expanding the conceptualisation of soils beyond an anthropocentric, utilitarian view to include ecocentric and deontological perspectives. Evaluation of interventions: Conduct empirical studies assessing the impact of different pedagogical, communication, and engagement approaches on fostering soil literacy and stewardship behaviours. Integration into competence frameworks: Investigate how soil literacy can be systematically embedded into existing competence-based sustainability education models (e.g., GreenComp, ESD) across all educational levels and professional sectors. Bridging the knowledge-action gap: Explore where, how, and under what conditions soil knowledge leads to action, stewardship, and systemic change rather than solely analysing why gaps persist. Inclusive soil literacy strategies: Develop and test educational and communication strategies that are inclusive, accessible, and tailored to diverse learning needs, including neurodivergent individuals and underrepresented communities. Strengthening participatory approaches: Examine how citizen science, co-created research, and participatory soil monitoring can foster both scientifically sound data collection and meaningful public engagement over the long term.
5. Conclusions
In summary, soil health is a dynamic and context-dependent concept shaped by the diverse perspectives and needs of all actors involved. There is not “one state” of soil health knowledge that we can achieve, but there is a common basic knowledge that can be shared. Defining and promoting soil care is essential to fostering a societal transformation in values, behaviours, and competencies—one that embraces contributions from across sectors and disciplines. Fostering soil care can begin with sparking curiosity and raising awareness among all actors, encouraging them to seek knowledge and enhance soil literacy. If awareness continues to grow, and collaboration between policymakers, landowners, scientists, educators, and citizens deepens, the potential for long-term soil preservation and practices becomes not only possible but highly achievable (Figure 4). This interconnected approach will be vital in ensuring resilient landscapes and thriving ecosystems for generations to come.
In future editions of this report, published annually until the conclusion of the SOLO project in 2027, the Think Tank will place greater emphasis on refining, condensing, and curating the list of knowledge gaps, actions, and bottlenecks.
Conceptualization, R.R.V. and K.N.M.; methodology, R.R.V. and K.N.M.; formal analysis, R.R.V. and K.N.M.; data curation, all Authors; writing—original draft preparation, R.R.V. and K.N.M.; writing—review and editing, all Authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author(s).
We would also like to express our gratitude to other individuals who contributed to the completion of this second version of the Soil Literacy Think Tank scoping document, which will be continuously updated every year throughout the lifespan of the project. Contributions were made by Froukje Rienks, Head of PR & Science communication at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW); Abdul Otman, Council member Global Ecovillage Network, ECOLISE; Tanja Mimmo, from the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (ECHO Project); Teresa Nóvoa, from MED—Mediterranean Institute for Agriculture, Environment and Development & CHANGE—Global Change and Sustainability Institute, Institute for Advanced Studies and Research, Universidade de Évora Samantha Grover, from Department of Applied Chemistry and Environmental Science, RMIT University; Monica A. Farfan, from German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv); and Tóth Gergely from Institute of Advanced Studies, Kőszeg and the Institute for Soil Sciences, HUN-REN ATK, Budapest. During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used OpenAI’s ChatGPT (version 2024) for the purposes of clustering the outcomes of Think Tank discussions, summarizing discussion outcomes and article texts, correcting grammar and spelling mistakes, rephrasing knowledge gaps titles, and generating section opening paragraphs. The authors have reviewed, edited, and verified all AI-generated content and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.
Marie Husseini is employed by Lantern Translations. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
The following abbreviations have been used in this manuscript:
| ABC | Attitudes (Heart), Behaviours (Hands), Competencies (Head) |
| ESD | Education for Sustainable Development |
| EU | European Union |
| ECF | European Competence Framework |
| EC4Clim | European Competence Framework for Climate Change Adaptation |
| EU SDGs | European Union Sustainable Development Goals |
| EU Soil Mission | A Soil Deal for Europe Mission |
| GEN | Global Ecovillage Network |
| GreenComp | European Green Competence Framework |
| GreenSCENT | Smart Citizen Education for a Green Future |
| ICLEI | Local Governments for Sustainability (originally International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) |
| JRC | Joint Research Centre of the European Commission |
| LfS | Learning for Sustainability |
| SOLO | Soils for Europe Project |
| UNSDGs | United Nations Sustainable Development Goals |
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Evolution of soil science.
Figure 2 Components of soil literacy emphasising the ABC (Attitudes, Behaviour, Competencies; (Johnson et al. 2020 [
Figure 3 Soil Literacy Think Tank work-flow.
Figure 4 Awareness-to-action continuum for soil health.
Top 10 selected knowledge gaps.
| Rank | Knowledge Gap | Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Further research is required to develop and validate frameworks that integrate soil as core component into Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) competence models. | Knowledge |
| 2 | More research is needed for understanding the ecosystem services delivered by soils for key actor groups to improve targeted communication. | Knowledge |
| 3 | More research is needed for evaluating the effectiveness of outreach efforts aimed at engaging primary and secondary school students, as well as the general public, in soil health topics and their impact on attracting new students to university-level soil health programs. | Knowledge |
| 4 | More research is needed to promote understanding of the key factors that enable and/or prevent foresters, farmers, urban planners, civil engineers, and other actors when it comes to considering soil health and adopting soil conservation practices. | Knowledge |
| 5 | More research is needed on the development of effective pedagogical strategies to foster a deeper understanding of soil’s importance. These strategies should promote critical thinking and be state-of-the-art, hands-on, and experiential. | Knowledge |
| 6 | More research is needed for fostering the connection between soil science knowledge and soil stewardship. Instead of focusing on why the gap exists (soil stewardship paradox), studies should explore how, where, and when soil knowledge contributes to responsible soil care. | Knowledge |
| 7 | More research is needed for assessing how local conditions affect the long-term success of citizen science initiatives in soil health in terms of scientific data collection and public education goals and other outcomes. | Knowledge |
| 8 | More research is needed for improving soil health communication strategies that prioritize cultural and social aspects of soils significant to diverse actors. | Knowledge |
| 9 | More research is needed to identify the key factors that stimulate instructors to adopt new and inspiring teaching methods regarding soil education. | Knowledge |
| 10 | More research is needed for creating educational materials tailored to different educational levels and neurodivergent people to encourage student interest, curiosity, and engagement. | Knowledge |
Appendix A
| Knowledge Gap | Type of Knowledge Gap | Bottlenecks | Action | Action Type |
| More research is needed to promote understanding of the key factors that enable and/or prevent foresters, farmers, urban planners, civil engineers, and other actors to consider soil health and to adopt soil conservation practices. | Knowledge Development Gap | Variability in local contexts may complicate generalisations. | Conduct surveys and interviews with farmers to identify motivations and barriers to adoption. | Research |
| More research is needed for fostering the connection between soil science knowledge and soil stewardship. Instead of focusing on why the gap exists (soil stewardship paradox), studies should explore how, where, and when soil knowledge contributes to responsible soil care. | Knowledge Development Gap | Limited funding for qualitative research projects. | Engage experts in psychology, sociology, and education to understand the factors influencing responsibility and care. | Research |
| Analyse successful soil stewardship models globally to identify effective strategies for bridging knowledge and action gaps. | Research | |||
| More research is needed on the development of effective pedagogical strategies to foster a deeper understanding of soil’s importance. These strategies should promote critical thinking and be state-of-the-art, hands-on, and experiential. | Knowledge Application Gap | Limited training for teachers on new pedagogical strategies. Insufficient funding for curriculum development. The depth of soil science education often depends on individual teachers’ interests and experiences, as well as available resources to meet educational standards set by authorities. A significant issue in agricultural education is the disconnect between fundamental soil science knowledge and practical environmental and industrial applications. Despite ongoing discussions to enhance soil science education, much of the teaching still occurs in lecture format, which limits engagement and understanding. Outdated textbooks and delayed updates in soil classification hinder effective soil science education globally, limiting knowledge transfer to students. | Develop case studies that illustrate successful integration of soil health in various curricula. | Innovation |
| Pilot hands-on learning modules in schools and gather feedback for improvements. | Research | |||
| Collaborate with educators to share best practices and resources. | Innovation | |||
| Foster collaborations between high schools and universities, promote practical exercises like field activities, and use technology tools. | Innovation | |||
| More research is needed for creating educational materials tailored to different educational levels and neurodivergent people to encourage student interest, curiosity, and engagement. | Knowledge Application Gap | Resistance from educators to change established curricula. Limited resources for conducting comprehensive curriculum evaluations. Teachers’ lack of formal soil science training impacts education quality, underscoring the need for improved teacher preparation. Difficulty in measuring the effectiveness of curriculum improvements over time. | Conduct evaluations of current school curricula to assess their effectiveness in teaching soil science. | Research |
| Develop recommendations for curriculum improvements based on evaluation findings. | Innovation | |||
| Emphasise successful examples of soil improvement to foster a more accurate perception among young people about the potential for solving soil degradation problems. | Innovation | |||
| Collaborate with educators to implement and test curriculum changes. | Innovation | |||
| More research is needed to identify the key factors that stimulate instructors to adopt new and inspiring teaching methods with regard to soil education. | Knowledge Development Gap | Institutional resistance to change established teaching practices. Lack of awareness about the benefits of new teaching methods. | Develop professional development programs that provide incentives for adopting innovative teaching practices. | Innovation |
| Collaborate with educational institutions to pilot new methods and evaluate their effectiveness. | Innovation | |||
| It is crucial to provide primary and secondary teachers with training that enhances their comfort and competence in teaching basic soil science concepts. | Innovation | |||
| More research is needed for assessing how local conditions affect the long-term success of citizen science initiatives in soil health, in terms of scientific data collection and public education goals and other outcomes. | Knowledge Development Gap | Variability in local policies and regulations may complicate studies. Difficulty in accessing data across different jurisdictions. Stakeholder disinterest and unstable group dynamics hinder participatory modelling, with sporadic participation reducing engagement and diversity in discussions. | Conduct comparative studies in different urban contexts to identify key factors affecting soil health initiatives. | Research |
| Further research is required to develop and validate frameworks that integrate soil as core component into Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) competence models. | Knowledge Application Gap | Insufficient awareness of the importance of soil in sustainability education. Long cycles of national curriculum reviews delay the reform and inclusion of soil science in educational subjects. | Conduct workshops for educators on using soil as a teaching tool for sustainability concepts. | Innovation |
| More research is needed for improving soil health communication strategies that prioritize cultural and social aspects of soils significant to diverse actors. | Knowledge Application Gap | Difficulty in reaching diverse stakeholder groups for engagement. Overly technical soil science education alienates non-experts, emphasising complexity over broader engagement with general audiences. In many developed countries, food abundance and the diminishing agricultural workforce have led to public apathy regarding soil understanding and protection. Communicating soil issues is difficult due to policymakers’ focus on crises and the gradual, non-urgent nature of soil degradation. | Develop educational materials that reflect cultural and social contexts related to soil. | Innovation |
| Long-term communication strategies should illustrate the costs and benefits of soil degradation and protection measures. | Innovation | |||
| Example: The Spanish Society of Soil Science has initiated various soil contests for students, emphasising ongoing engagement with the target audience, recruitment for collaborations, continuous development of educational resources, and training in science communication for soil scientists. | Innovation | |||
| Example: With techniques relating to stand-up comedy, and with soil science societies, we created the ‘Soil Profile of the Month’ online blog on the website of the Soil Science Society of Belgium. | Innovation | |||
| More research is needed for understanding the ecosystem services delivered by soils for key actor groups to improve targeted communication. | Knowledge Development Gap | Difficulty in accessing data on soil services across different regions. | Collaborate with local governments to promote soil service assessments in land use planning. | Innovation |
| More research is needed for evaluating the effectiveness of outreach efforts aimed at engaging primary and secondary school students, as well as the general public, in soil health topics and their impact on attracting new students to university-level soil health programs. | Knowledge Development Gap | Limited funding for outreach evaluations. Difficulty in measuring long-term impacts of outreach efforts. Resistance from educational institutions to prioritise soil science programs. Student interest in sustainability grows, but soil science’s traditional focus on agriculture limits its environmental relevance in education. | Conduct evaluations of outreach programs targeting school students to assess their effectiveness. | Research |
| More research is needed for assessing teaching approaches, content, and outcomes of soil health courses across institutions. | Knowledge Development Gap | Difficulty in achieving consensus on definitions across diverse groups. | Collaborate with stakeholders to promote the adoption of standardised terminology. | Innovation |
| Develop educational resources that clarify soil health concepts for various audiences. | Innovation | |||
| More research is needed for defining key terms like “soil health” and Soil Mission Objectives to create a common understanding across disciplines. | Knowledge Development Gap | Difficulty in achieving consensus on definitions across diverse groups. | Collaborate with stakeholders to promote the adoption of standardised terminology. | Innovation |
| Develop educational resources that clarify soil health concepts for various audiences. | Innovation | |||
| More research is needed for analysing how scientists, policymakers, and businesses communicate in soil health projects beyond the ‘top-down vs. bottom-up’ model. | Knowledge Development Gap | Difficulty in accessing data on communication practices across sectors. | Analyse communication practices in soil science projects across various sectors. | Research |
| Develop guidelines for effective communication among diverse stakeholders in soil science. | Innovation | |||
| More research is needed for understanding how different actors perceive and value soil health based on their needs, values, and cultural backgrounds. | Knowledge Development Gap | Difficulty in measuring changes in awareness over time. | Consultation with academics, industry, and professionals, by means of online (Delphi Study) and face-to-face forums. | Research |
| More research is needed for examining how long-term national curriculum review cycles delay soil health education reforms and innovations. | Knowledge Development Gap | Bureaucratic hurdles may delay curriculum reform efforts. There is resistance from policymakers focused on other educational priorities. Limited awareness of the importance of soil science in education. | Conduct studies to analyse the impact of national curriculum review cycles on educational reform in soil science. | Research |
| Develop advocacy strategies to promote the timely integration of soil science into curricula. | Innovation | |||
| Collaborate with policymakers to streamline the curriculum review process. | Innovation | |||
| More research is needed for assessing how high-quality and open-source materials can improve soil education and soil knowledge exchange. | Knowledge Development Gap | Resistance from institutions to adopt non-traditional resources. Difficulty in ensuring the quality and relevance of open-source materials. | Create platforms for educators to share, adapt, and co-develop teaching resources and innovative approaches. | Innovation |
| Pilot open-source soil health materials in diverse educational settings and evaluate knowledge retention. | Research | |||
| More research is needed for evaluating and improving the effectiveness of distance learning for soil education, particularly for laboratory and field-based training. | Knowledge Application Gap | Technical challenges related to online learning platforms may hinder program implementation. | Collaborate with educational institutions to pilot distance education options and evaluate their effectiveness. | Innovation |
| Develop evaluation frameworks for assessing distance education programs in soil science. | Research | |||
| More research is needed for fostering skills and competencies in soil education that address real-world challenges. | Innovation Knowledge Gap | Conduct research on the competencies needed for effective soil stewardship and how to teach them. | Research |
1. European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment. EU Soil Strategy for 2030–Towards Healthy Soils for People and the Planet; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021; Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0699 (accessed on 16 June 2025).
2. EU Soil Observatory (EUSO). EU Soil Observatory, EU Science Hub, Citizen Engagement and Soil Literacy. Available online: https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/eu-soil-observatory-euso/eu-soil-observatory-citizen-engagement-and-soil-literacy_en (accessed on 15 January 2024).
3. European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment. EU Soil Mission Implementation Plan. 2021; Available online: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-09/soil_mission_implementation_plan_final_for_publication.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2025).
4. Johnson, K.; Philip, D.; Engels, C. The ABC of Soil Literacy-Evidence from Ghana, South Africa and Zimbabwe; Durham University: Durham, UK, 2020; Available online: https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1628546/the-abc-of-soil-literacy-evidence-from-ghana-south-africa-and-zimbabwe (accessed on 16 June 2025).
5. Granjou, C.; Meulemans, G. Bringing soils to life in the human and social sciences. Soil Secur.; 2023; 10, 100082. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soisec.2022.100082]
6. Rusakova, E.; Sukhacheva, E.; Hartemink, A. Vasiliy Dokuchaev—A biographical sketch on the occasion of his 175th birthday. Geoderma; 2022; 412, 115718. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.115718]
7. Keen, B. An International Congress of Soil Science. Nature; 1927; 120, pp. 385-386. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/120385a0]
8. Melillo, E. The First Green Revolution: Debt Peonage and the Making of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Trade, 1840–1930. Am. Hist. Rev.; 2012; 117, pp. 1028-1060. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ahr/117.4.1028]
9. Mizuta, K.; Grunwald, S.; Cropper, W.P.; Bacon, A.R. Developmental History of Soil Concepts from a Scientific Perspective. Appl. Sci.; 2021; 11, 10324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app11094275]
10. Sigl, L.; Falkenberg, R.; Fochler, M. Changing articulations of relevance in soil science. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci.; 2023; 97, pp. 79-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.12.004] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36634376]
11. Penha-Lopes, G.; Henfrey, T. Reshaping the Future: How Local Communities Are Catalysing Social, Economic and Ecological Transformation in Europe; The First Status Report on Community-Led Action on Sustainability and Climate Change ECOLISE: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
12. Giandrini, R. LIFE Soil Ex-Post Study Final Report. Available online: https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/publications/digital-publications/life-soil-ex-post-study-final-report_en (accessed on 16 June 2025).
13. Jay, A.K.; Crimmins, A.R.; Avery, C.W.; Dahl, T.A.; Dodder, R.S.; Hamlington, B.D.; Lustig, A.; Marvel, K.; Méndez-Lazaro, P.A.; Osler, M.S.
14. Williams, D.R.; Brown, J.D. Living soil and sustainability education: Linking pedagogy and pedology. J. Sustain. Educ.; 2011; 2, Available online: https://www.susted.com/wordpress/content/living-soil-and-sustainability-education-linking-pedagogy-and-pedology_2011_03/ (accessed on 16 June 2025).
15. Brevik, E.C.; Krzic, M.; Muggler, C.; Field, D.; Hannam, J.; Uchida, Y. Soil science education: A multinational look at current perspectives. Nat. Sci. Educ.; 2022; 51, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nse2.20077]
16. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. MinD the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environ. Educ. Res.; 2002; 8, pp. 239-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401]
17. Krasny, M.E.; Tidball, K.G. Civic ecology: A pathway for Earth Stewardship in cities. Front. Ecol. Environ.; 2012; 10, pp. 267-273. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1890/110230]
18. Hallett, S.; Sakrabani, R.; Keay, C.; Hannam, J. Developments in land information systems: Examples demonstrating land resource management capabilities and options. Soil Use Manag.; 2017; 33, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sum.12380]
19. Keesstra, S.; Bouma, J.; Wallinga, J.; Tittonell, P.; Smith, P.; Cerdà, A.; Montanarella, L.; Quinton, J.; Pachepsky, Y.; van der Putten, W.
20. Clark, G.; Russell, J.; Enyeart, P.; Gracia, B.; Wessel, A.; Jarmoskaite, I.; Polioudakis, D.; Stuart, Y.; Gonzalez, T.; MacKrell, A.
21. Havlin, J.; Balster, N.; Chapman, S.; Ferris, D.; Thompson, T.; Smith, T. Trends in soil science education and employment. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.; 2010; 74, pp. 1429-1432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2010.0143]
22. Collins, M.E. Where? have all the soils students gone?. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ.; 2008; 37, pp. 117-124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jnrlse2008.371117x]
23. Mango, N.; Makate, C.; Tamene, L.; Mponela, P.; Ndengu, G. Awareness and adoption of land, soil and water conservation practices in the Chinyanja Triangle, Southern Africa. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res.; 2017; 5, pp. 122-129. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.04.003]
24. Fantappiè, M.; Lorenzetti, R.; Meo, I.D.; Costantini, E.A.C. How to improve the adoption of soil conservation practices? Suggestions from farmers’ perception in western Sicily. J. Rural. Stud.; 2020; 73, pp. 186-202. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.11.001]
25. Lavergne, C.; Cabrol, L.; Cuadros-Orellana, S.; Quinteros-Urquieta, C.; Stoll, A.; Yáñez, C.; Tapia, J.; Orlando, J.; Rojas, C. Rising awareness to improve conservation of microorganisms in terrestrial ecosystems: Advances and future directions in soil microbial diversity from Chile and the Antarctic Peninsula. Front. Environ. Sci.; 2024; 12, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1326158]
26. Charzyński, P.; Urbańska, M.; Capra, G.F.; Ganga, A.; Holmes, P.; Szulczewski, M.; Baatar, U.; Boularbah, A.; Bresilla, B.; Cacovean, H.
27. Barbero-Sierra, C.; Marques, M.J.; Ruíz-Pérez, M. The case of urban sprawl in Spain as an active and irreversible driving force for desertification. J. Arid. Environ.; 2013; 90, pp. 95-102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.10.014]
28. Pimentel, D.; Kounang, N. Ecology of Soil Erosion in Ecosystems. Ecosystems; 1998; 1, pp. 416-426. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s100219900035]
29. Nagajyoti, P.C.; Lee, K.D.; Sreekanth, T.V.M. Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett.; 2010; 8, pp. 199-216. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10311-010-0297-8]
30. Amador, J. Active Learning Approaches to Teaching Soil Science at the College Level. Front. Environ. Sci.; 2019; 7, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00111]
31. Al-Ismaily, S.; Kacimov, A.; Al-Mayhai, A.; Al-Busaidi, H.; Blackburn, D.; Al-Shukaili, A.; Al-Maktoumi, A. The “Soil Skills” Pedagogical Approach Conjugated with Soil Judging Contests. Span. J. Soil Sci.; 2023; 13, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/sjss.2023.12081]
32. Aran, D. Helping Future Schoolteachers Discover and Teach Soil: An Example of Project-Based Learning. Span. J. Soil Sci.; 2024; 14, 12280. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/sjss.2024.12280]
33. Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Public Health; 2014; 35, pp. 207-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443]
34. Prager, K.; Posthumus, H. Socio-economic factors influencing farmers’ adoption of soil conservation practices in Europe. Human Dimensions of Soil and Water Conservation: A Global Perspective; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 203-223.
35. Neaman, A.; Navarro-Villarroel, C.; Poblete-Ramos, F.; Lizardi, N.; Burnham, E.; Huerta-Salinas, O.; Zabel, S.; Ermakov, D.S.; Castro, M.; Otto, S. Reconciling the soil stewardship paradox: Knowledge without care, care without knowledge. Geoderma Reg.; 2024; 37, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2024.e00794]
36. Price, H.L.; Mauro, S.E.; High, K.; Ramírez-Andreotta, M.D.; Ureta, S.; Walls, D.; Xu, C.; Kinchy, A. Soil publics: Regenerating relations with urban soils through citizen science. Local Environ.; 2024; 29, pp. 480-494. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2023.2300977]
37. Wadoux, A.; Mcbratney, A. Participatory approaches for soil research and management: A literature-based synthesis. Soil Security.; 2023; 10, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soisec.2023.100085]
38. Mason, E.; Gascuel-Odoux, C.; Aldrian, U.; Sun, H.; Miloczki, J.; Götzinger, S.; Burton, V.J.; Rienks, F.; Lonardo, S.D.; Sandén, T. Participatory soil citizen science: An unexploited resource for European soil research. Eur. J. Soil Sci.; 2024; 75, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13470]
39. Hou, D.; Bolan, N.; Tsang, D.; Kirkham, M.; O’Connor, D. Sustainable soil use and management: An interdisciplinary and systematic approach. Sci. Total Environ.; 2020; 729, 138961. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138961] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32353725]
40. Otto, A.; Gugushvili, D. Eco-Social Divides in Europe: Public Attitudes towards Welfare and Climate Change Policies. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 404. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12010404]
41. Schüle, S.A.; Hilz, L.K.; Dreger, S.; Bolte, G. Social Inequalities in Environmental Resources of Green and Blue Spaces: A Review of Evidence in the WHO European Region. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2019; 16, 1216. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071216] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30987381]
42. Kovasna, A.; Mattos, T. GEN Ecovillage Impact Assessment Pilot Study; Initial Results of 29 Showcase Ecovillages; Project Report Global Ecovillage Network: Moray, UK, 2017; 36.
43. Krzywoszynska, A. Making knowledge and meaning in communities of practice: What role may science play? The case of sustainable soil management in England. Soil Use Manag.; 2019; 35, pp. 160-168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sum.12487]
44. Krzic, M.; Yates, T.; Diochon, A.; Eerd, L.V.; MacKenzie, M.D. Assessing the incorporation of the soil health concept in postsecondary education in Canada. Can. J. Soil Sci.; 2024; 104, pp. 227-236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjss-2024-0002]
45. Machado de Lima, N.; Munoz Rojas, M. Teaching and enriching younger generations perception of soil ecosystems and dryland restoration through soil biocrusts. Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly 2022; Vienna, Austria, 23–27 May 2022; EGU22-8943 [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-8943]
46. Field, D.J.; Yates, D.; Koppi, A.J.; McBratney, A.B.; Jarrett, L. Framing a modern context of soil science learning and teaching. Geoderma; 2017; 289, pp. 117-123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.11.034]
47. Durgungoz, F.C.; Durgungoz, A. “Interactive lessons are great, but too much is too much”: Hearing out neurodivergent students, Universal Design for Learning and the case for integrating more anonymous technology in higher education. High. Educ.; 2025; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01389-6]
48. McDowall, A.; Kiseleva, M. A rapid review of supports for neurodivergent students in higher education. Implications for research and practice. Neurodiversity; 2024; 2, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/27546330241291769]
49. Krzywoszynska, A. Taking Soil Care Seriously: A Proposition. Cultural Understanding of Soils; Patzel, N.; Grunwald, S.; Brevik, E.C.; Feller, C. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 395-408. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13169-1_19]
50. Bianchi, G.; Pisiotis, U.; Cabrera Giraldez, M. GreenComp: The European Sustainability Competence Framework; Punie, Y.; Bacigalupo, M. EUR30955 E.N. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2760/13286] ISBN 978-92-76-46485-3
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Naciph Mora Karen 1 ; Husseini, Marie 4 ; Rodrigues, Sónia Morais 5
; van de Logt Roos 6 ; Johnson, Karen 7
; Borut, Vrščaj 8
; Ramezzano Camilla 9 ; Črnec Katja 8 ; Ballstaedt Almut 1 1 ICLEI European Secretariat, 79098 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany; [email protected] (K.N.M.); [email protected] (A.B.)
2 Faculty of Humanities, University of Oulu, 90570 Oulu, Finland
3 School of Rural, Surveying and Geoinformatics Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15780 Zografou, Greece; [email protected]
4 Lantern Translations, 68240 Kaysersberg-Vignoble, France; [email protected]
5 Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, Department of Environment and Planning, Universidade de Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal; [email protected]
6 Louis Bolk Instituut, 3981 Kosterijland, The Netherlands; [email protected]
7 Department of Engineering, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, UK; [email protected]
8 Faculty of Environmental Protection, 3320 Velenje, Slovenia; [email protected] (B.V.); [email protected] (K.Č.)
9 Education and Learning Sciences Group, Wageningen University, 6708 Wageningen, The Netherlands; [email protected]