Living Labs for Future Healthy Soils: A Review

Academic Editors: Ken Smith, Deborah A. McGrath, Kuok Ho Daniel Tang and Kevin Emmanuel Scriber II Received: 31 August 2025 Revised: 24 September 2025 Accepted: 27 September 2025 Published: 30 September 2025 Citation: Lasina, A.; Bianchetto, E.; Gennaro, L.; Monroy, F.; Pellegrini, S.; Plutino, M. Living Labs for Future Healthy Soils: A Review. Land 2025, 14, 1974. https://doi.org/10.3390/ land14101974 Copyright: © 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/). Review Living Labs for Future Healthy Soils: A Review Alessio Lasina 1, Elisa Bianchetto 2, Laura Gennaro 3, Fernando Monroy 4,* , Sergio Pellegrini 2 and Manuela Plutino 1 1CREA—Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’Analisi dell’Economia Agraria, Research Centre for Forestry and Wood, Viale Santa Margherita 80, 52100 Arezzo, Italy; [email protected].it (A.L.); [email protected].it (M.P.) 2CREA—Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’Analisi dell’Economia Agraria, Research Centre Agriculture and Environment, Via di Lanciola 12/A, 50125 Firenze, Italy; [email protected].it (E.B.); [email protected] (S.P.) 3CREA—Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’Analisi dell’Economia Agraria, Research Centre for Food and Nutrition, Via Ardeatina 546, 00178 Roma, Italy; laura.gennar[email protected].it 4CREA—Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’Analisi dell’Economia Agraria, Research Centre for Vegetable and Ornamental Crops, Corso Degli Inglesi 508, 18038 Sanremo, Italy *Correspondence: fernando.monr[email protected].it; Tel.: +39-0184694841 Abstract Soil is fundamental to life on Earth through the provision of many ecosystem services. The current model of economic development exerts significant pressure on this resource, leading to degradation processes that are accelerated by the effects of climate change. This situation hinders the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and some parts of the world have started a process to reverse this trend, among them the European Union, which has chosen the living labs approach as a strategic solution. The growing interest in this subject within the EU has led to the establishment of a new framework to design and test sustainable policies to improve soil health and management at the continental scale. This review presents State-of-the-Art information on the use of the living labs approach to improve soil health. It also introduces the SOILL Support Structure for Soil Health Living Labs (SHLLs) and Lighthouses and the significant role of the SOILLStartup project to help establish a network of 100 such structures across the EU. Following the PRISMA methodology, the review describes the main features of SHLLs (definition, types of stakeholders, field and scale of application), as well as their current geographical distribution. The work provides information that can be used by the scientific community, policy makers, and soil stakeholders who prioritise soil health, regardless of the context in which they operate. Keywords: soil; soil health; soil health living lab; soil health living laboratory; lighthouse; innovation; SDGs; SOILL-Startup 1. Introduction Soil is fundamental to life on Earth, providing essential ecosystem services (ES), such as biomass production (including food, fodder, fibre, and fuel), regulation of water flows and climate-altering gases (CO 2 , N 2 O, and CH 4 ), anchorage for infrastructure, supply of building materials, and the aesthetic value of landscapes that support human habits, recreation, and inspiration [ 1 , 2 ]. Soil supplies 98.8% of the calories consumed by humans [ 3 ], hosts 25% of global biodiversity [ 4 ], and serves as the largest carbon reservoir in the terrestrial biosphere, storing approximately 1700 Gt of carbon in the top metre. This Land 2025,14, 1974 https://doi.org/10.3390/land14101974 Land 2025,14, 1974 2 of 20 amount is four times greater than the carbon stored in global vegetation, twice that in the atmosphere, and 160 times the current annual anthropogenic CO 2 emission rate [ 5 ]. The sequestration of organic carbon in soil contributes to climate change mitigation [ 6 ] but only when it results in a net gain of carbon removed from the atmosphere [ 7 ]. Soil also plays a crucial role in other elemental cycles, containing 94% of the nitrogen and 98% of the phosphorus found in the terrestrial environment [8]. The paradigm through which our societies have evolved over time has led—and continues to lead—to significant pressure on soils worldwide, driven by the growing demand for food, fibre, and energy [ 9 ], resulting in soil degradation, i.e., the diminution of soil’s current or potential capacity to provide ecosystem functions as a result of one or more degradation processes [ 10 ]. Degradation is primarily due to unsustainable agricultural and silvicultural practices, pollution, land sealing caused by infrastructure development and urbanisation [ 11 ], industry activities [ 12 ], open-cast mining [ 13 ], and war activities [ 14 – 18 ]. All these pressures can be further exacerbated by the effects of climate change [19]. As a result, 33% of the world’s soils are moderately to severely degraded, and 52% of agricultural areas are similarly affected, with an estimated annual cost of USD 400 billion [ 20 , 21 ]. In Europe, soil degradation affects between 60% and 70% of soils, driven by various processes affecting soil structure and function [ 11 ]. Soil degradation typically impairs soil health, which can be defined as the “capacity of soil to function as a vital living system to sustain biological productivity, maintain environment quality and promote plant, animal and human health” [ 22 , 23 ]. Soil health is vital not only for agriculture but also for forests, natural ecosystems, and urban environments [24]. Pressure on soil also undermines the achievement of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as highlighted by Bouma et al. [ 25 ] and Tóth et al. [ 26 ]. Due to its unique characteristics, soil influences all SDGs; however, those most closely linked to soil health include food security (SDG 2) [27], clean water (SDG 6) [28], resource efficiency (SDG 12) [ 21 ], climate action (SDG 13) [ 29 ], and life on land (SDG 15) [ 30 ]. Beyond hindering sustainable development, land degradation can also lead to social and political tensions, and even conflict, as competition intensifies for the remaining productive land [31]. Given its importance not only environmentally but also strategically and geopolitically, some parts of the world have begun to prioritise soil in their agendas. This is the case in the European Union (EU), where—after a period in which political attention focused primarily on water, climate, and ecology—soil has now gained prominence, thanks to initiatives such as the Horizon Europe programme’s mission ‘A Soil Deal for Europe’ [ 32 ], and the Soil Monitoring and Resilience Plan [ 33 ], which includes an allocation of one billion euros for research through 2028 [ 34 ]. This growing awareness within the EU has led to the development of a definition of soil health aligned with its policy commitments. As reported by Veerman et al. [ 11 ], soil health is defined as the continued capacity of soils to sustain ecosystem services, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the European Green Deal. The development and strengthening of sustainable soil management practices and policies is a complex challenge [ 2 ], primarily because the key actors directly involved in managing this resource—scientists, policymakers, and farmers—often work in isolation, with limited synergy [ 35 ]. In addition to this sectoral fragmentation, there is also a disconnect between policymakers and those who manage the soil, such as farmers, with the scientific community playing a bridging role [ 36 ]. However, the role of science in this process may be hindered by a lack of trust from farmers toward authorities. As an example, a survey conducted in The Netherlands revealed that 80% of farmers do not trust the government [ 37 ]. Distrust among farmers can hinder the adoption of effective soil health policies Land 2025,14, 1974 3 of 20 and weaken the credibility of research institutions. Strengthening trust and engagement is essential to ensure that farmers adopt sustainable soil management practices. Achieving sustainable soil management and fostering resilient, sustainable development is only possible by engaging all relevant actors. The EU has taken significant and concrete steps in this direction by investing in the living labs (LLs) approach, with the goal of implementing 100 LLs by 2030 [38]. The term living lab was coined in the early 21st century by Professor William Mitchell of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to describe a research methodology focused on the users of innovation [ 39 ]. While LLs have various definitions in the literature, they can be described as “spaces for participatory co-creation, co-innovation, transdisciplinary and systemic research, thus including many elements of practical transition,” as stated by Veerman et al. [ 11 ]. Alternatively, the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) defines them as “ecosystems of innovation, designed to meet the needs of end users” [39]. Several reviews have explored the application of LLs in various disciplinary fields, including medicine [ 40 , 41 ], energy systems [ 42 ], the public sector [ 43 ], sustainability [ 44 , 45 ], urban development [ 46 , 47 ], and agriculture [ 39 ]. However, to date, there has been no comprehensive review of the application of LLs to soil health (SHLL). Due to the growing interest within the EU in SHLLs and the lack of comprehensive overviews on the subject, this review aims to fill that knowledge gap. It also provides information about the European SOILL-Startup project, which supports the establishment and expansion of a network of SHLLs across Europe, helping to make this approach more organised and structured. The review addresses the following questions: (1) What are the defining characteristics of an SHLL? (2) What are the fields of application of SHLLs? and (3) What is the diffusion of soil-related LLs across the EU and worldwide? In addition to gathering information on an emerging topic, this work can serve the scientific community, policymakers, and soil stakeholders, in general, to promote the dissemination of this approach in different socio-ecological contexts within the EU and beyond. 2. Materials and Methods This review is the result of the activities carried out within the Horizon Europe SOILLStartup project (HORIZON-MISS-2023-SOIL-SGA-01). The work followed the guidelines proposed by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and MetaAnalyses) method, as outlined by Page et al. [ 48 ], which was developed to conduct reviews in a rigorous and systematic manner. It identifies key publications in the literature and summarises their main findings [49,50]. To answer the research questions, a detailed literature search was carried out, followed by the analysis and characterisation of the studies found. This provided information on SHLLs, including definitions, stakeholders, scale of implementation, fields of application, and geographical distribution at both global and EU levels. Finally, the main features of the European SOILL-Startup project were examined by consulting its website between December 2024 and February 2025. Its objectives and characteristics were described, positioning it as a valuable starting point for the dissemination of SHLLs across diverse socio-ecological contexts, both within the EU and globally. 2.1. Bibliographic Research The criteria for selecting papers, unlike those used by Cascone et al. [ 39 ] and Hossain et al. [ 51 ], included not only scientific articles but also editorials, reviews, conference papers/reviews, and non-open-access publications. Moreover, in contrast to the aforementioned studies—which considered publications from the early 2000s onward—this review Land 2025,14, 1974 4 of 20 did not apply any time restrictions. This approach was chosen to include older studies that could provide useful insights for the purpose of this work. The literature search was conducted using the Scopus database on 18 December 2024 and the Web of Science on 7 January 2025. These databases are considered among the primary sources for multidisciplinary research by several authors [ 52 ]. To conduct the literature search, a set of keywords was selected for use in the databases. The keywords related to living labs (LLs) were living lab,living labs,living laboratories, and living labbing, as reported by Hossain et al. [ 51 ]. To identify works addressing the application of LLs in relation to soil, the terms soil and soil health were added to the keyword set. These keywords were combined using Boolean operators, resulting in the following search structure: ‘living lab OR living labs OR living laboratories OR living labbing AND soil OR soil health’. The exclusive use of the Scopus and Web of Science databases excluded the grey literature references that had not undergone formal peer review. This approach was adopted to ensure a consistent level of quality across the selected studies. Once the list of publications was compiled, the data were downloaded as a CSV file and imported into Microsoft Excel for further processing. Duplicate entries and non-English articles were removed to ensure the replicability of the review and avoid language-related limitations. The remaining papers were screened by title to assess their relevance to the topic. Next, the abstracts of the selected papers were reviewed to identify those suitable for in-depth reading. After examining the full texts, papers that were not aligned with the objectives of the review were excluded, while the relevant ones proceeded to the analysis and characterisation phase. 2.2. Analysis and Characterisation The analysis manually identified and coded key characteristics of the documents to answer the research questions, without using analytical tools. Specifically, the papers were examined for several characteristics related to SHLLs, including definitions, stakeholders, fields of application, scale of implementation, and geographical distribution, based on the location of the actual or conceptual application of the SHLL rather than the country of publication. Regarding stakeholders, the literature indicates that living labs can be structured as either public–private partnerships (3Ps) [ 53 , 54 ] or public–private–people partnerships (4Ps) [ 55 , 56 ]. For this review, the 4Ps model was adopted, based on a quadruple helix structure in which stakeholders include industry, research and education, public administration, and civil society/users [ 57 ]. This model allows for a more detailed and complete analysis, better reflecting the composition of soil living labs. 3. Results and Discussion The method adopted for document selection resulted in 22 papers considered suitable for achieving the objectives of this review (Figure 1). For an overview of the selected documents, please refer to Appendix A. The relatively small number of papers included in the analysis reflects the fact that this topic is still in its early stages of development, underscoring the potential relevance of this review in capturing a snapshot of the current state of soil living labs. Considering that the initial number of potential references ( n= 120 , after excluding duplicates) was relatively large, and that the final selection resulted from a multistep screening process, the 22 chosen references can be considered the most representative of the composition and functioning of SHLLs. Land 2025,14, 1974 5 of 20 Figure 1. Process leading to the selection of articles for review, using the PRISMA diagram flow [ 58 ]. 3.1. Definitions of Soil Health Living Labs and Lighthouses Although not all the selected documents included a specific statement on the exact meaning of SHLLs, it was possible to reconstruct a chronological sequence of these definitions and their evolution over time (Table 1). It is also important to note that the terminology varied by region: articles produced in the EU used the term soil health living lab, while those from the USA used soil health living laboratory. Table 1. Definitions of soil health living labs (SHLLs) and lighthouses (LHs) reported in the reviewed literature, sorted chronologically (least recent at the top and most recent at the bottom), including related works citing those definitions and proposed applications. Authors Definitions Related Works Proposed Applications Derner et al. [59] [SHLLs are interactive centres, including] (1) case studies of observational, field-based implementation of management strategies under real-world environmental variability; (2) participatory, grass-roots efforts led by producers incorporating adaptive management at locally relevant scales to achieve desired goals; and (3) peer learning opportunities among producers facing similar ecological, economic, and social constraints. Williams [60] Promotion of science-based grazing land management, maintaining soil health and protecting soil ecosystems from inappropriate management practices. Land 2025,14, 1974 6 of 20 Table 1. Cont. Authors Definitions Related Works Proposed Applications Veerman et al. [11] Spaces for co-creation, co-innovation, and transdisciplinary and systemic research, incorporating different elements for a concrete transition. Mason et al. [61], EC [32], Löbmann et al. [35] Development of a platform for co-creation between various stakeholders, mixing both theoretical and empirical soil knowledge. Promote access to soil knowledge. Adaptation of research-based solutions to real contexts. Bouma [62]Spaces for co-innovation through participatory, transdisciplinary systemic research. Bouma and Reijneveld [37], Bouma et al. [63] Introduction of effective interaction practices between researchers and farmers. Research on soil health indicators. Development of adaptive management strategies. EC [32] User-centred, place-based, and transdisciplinary research and innovation ecosystems, which involve land managers, scientists, and other relevant partners in systemic research and co-design, testing, monitoring, and evaluation of solutions in real-life settings to improve their effectiveness for soil health and accelerate adoption. Löbmann et al. [35], Reijneveld et al. [64] Generation of systemic and specific solutions for sustainable soil and land management based on the realities of application, considering needs, social and economic dynamics (e.g., incentives and business), and soil and climate characteristics. Creation and dissemination of knowledge, fostering multi-scale development from the local to the regional level. Arias-Navarro et al. [38] SHLLs [are] partnerships between different actors, like researchers, farmers, foresters, spatial planners, land managers, and citizens who come together to co-create innovations for a mutually agreed objective. Living labs will be established at the territorial, landscape or regional scale, with several experimental sites covered underneath. Reijneveld et al. [64] Set up partnerships that encourage soil research. Establishment of soil LHs as inspiring examples of good management practices. Overall, the European Commission (EC) [ 32 ] has offered the most operational definition of SHLLs, while Derner et al. [ 59 ] and Arias-Navarro et al. [ 38 ] provided detailed definitions focusing on the types of stakeholders and the scale of application. The concept of an SHLL as an interactive structure operating simultaneously across multiple areas with potentially diverse characteristics can be applied to individual sites through the creation of so-called soil lighthouses (LHs) [65]. The definitions found in the bibliography are all based on the main ideas behind living labs—like working in real-world settings and involving people in the process—but there are some differences between those from the United States and the European Union. In the case of the United States [ 59 ], the definition predates the others and reflects the need to find participatory solutions to preserve soil health in grazing systems and not in other types of land use and is, therefore, very specific. This is likely due to historical factors, as grassland soil degradation was seen as a major environmental issue in the mid-20th century. Studies from the EU often show unique features, such as a strong focus on co-designing solutions, as seen in the definition by the European Commission [ 32 ], which is also cited by other authors. Over time, definitions have become more complex, involving more stakeholders (like citizens) and being used in a wider range of situations, not just limited to one type of land use. Land 2025,14, 1974 7 of 20 3.2. Stakeholders Compared to the 4Ps model found in the literature, the publications reviewed include stakeholders to varying degrees (Table 2). At one end of the spectrum is Panagos and Orgiazzi [ 66 ], who considered only the category of young researchers and their contribution of new ideas to SHLLs. At the other end, six papers include all stakeholder categories. Between these two extremes, the remaining papers present different combinations of stakeholders. Table 2. Stakeholders involved in SHLLs as mentioned in the publications examined in this review, with the number of stakeholder categories decreasing towards the bottom of the table. Authors Stakeholder Involved Research and Education Civil Society and Users Public Administration Industry Ascione et al. [67] Yes Yes Yes Yes Bonifazi et al. [68] Yes Yes Yes Yes Luján Soto et al. [69] Yes Yes Yes Yes Mason et al. [61] Yes Yes Yes Yes Pokupec et al. [70] Yes Yes Yes Yes Williams [60] Yes Yes Yes Yes Arias-Navarro et al. [38] Yes Yes No Yes Bouma [62] Yes Yes Yes No Derner et al. [59] Yes Yes Yes No Luján Soto et al. [71] Yes Yes No Yes Sintayehu et al. [72] Yes Yes Yes No Bouma [24] Yes Yes No No Bouma and Reijneveld [37] Yes Yes No No Bouma and Veerman [73] Yes Yes No No Bouma et al. [63] Yes Yes No No Bouma et al. [65] Yes Yes No No Löbmann et al. [35] Yes Yes No No Preite et al. [74] Yes Yes No No Reijneveld et al. [64] Yes Yes No No Simon-Rojo [75] No Yes Yes No Bouma [76] Yes No No No Panagos and Orgiazzi [66] Yes No No No Publications that include all stakeholder categories are mainly those that feature case studies and describe the methods used for stakeholder engagement. For example, Pokupec et al. [ 70 ] proposed a multi-stakeholder engagement model involving farmers through interviews and surveys. Similarly, Ascione et al. [ 67 ] used interviews and meetings, representing the only case among all the reviewed papers where the direct involvement of civil society is clearly evident. In the work of Sintayehu et al. [ 72 ], stakeholder engagement was achieved through focus groups. In the case of Preite et al. [ 74 ], stakeholders organised themselves into an SHLL as part of the Italian national research programme Agritech. Luján Soto et al. [ 69 , 71 ] described activities that could support the future development of SHLLs, including collaboration with farmers’ associations through field visits and workshops. In Derner et al. [ 59 ], the proposed SHLL involves stakeholders through the voluntary participation of farmers already engaged in producer, soil conservation, and environmental networks. In Simon-Rojo [ 75 ], stakeholders collaborated through Alternative Food Networks and with the support of policymakers. All other documents mentioned stakeholders but did not provide details on how they interact to form an SHLL. Overall, the analysis of the selected publications reveals two distinct views on the role of stakeholders. For Land 2025,14, 1974 8 of 20 some authors [ 24 , 35 , 37 , 59 , 62 – 65 , 73 , 74 , 76 ], SHLLs are the result of collaboration between academia and farmers, paving the way for a participatory governance model. In contrast, other authors [ 38 , 60 , 61 , 67 – 72 , 75 ] view SHLLs as fundamentally guided by research institutions, following a purely technical approach. 3.3. Fields of Application From the analysis and coding of the selected documents, several areas of application for SHLLs were identified. These areas were addressed either individually or across multiple sectors within the publications. The identified fields include agriculture, post-industrial contexts, urban/peri-urban areas, meadows and pastures, and forests and natural areas (Table 3). Agriculture was the most frequently represented field, appearing in 17 papers, while post-industrial contexts were the least represented. Most of the publications are mono-sectoral, focusing primarily on agriculture, whereas the remaining papers address more than one field of application. Table 3. Field of application of existing or conceptualised SHLLs in the reviewed documents, with authors covering more areas of application at the top and fewer at the bottom. Authors Field of Application Agriculture Meadows and Pastures Post-Industrial Context Forests and Natural Areas Urban/PeriUrban Areas Arias-Navarro et al. [38] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Löbmann et al. [35] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Simon-Rojo [75] Yes Yes No Yes Yes Sintayehu et al. [72] Yes Yes No Yes No Williams [60] No Yes No Yes No Ascione et al. [67] No No Yes No Yes Bonifazi et al. [68] No No No No Yes Bouma [62] Yes No No No No Bouma [24] Yes No No No No Bouma [76] Yes No No No No Bouma and Reijneveld [37] Yes No No No No Bouma and Veerman [73] Yes No No No No Bouma et al. [63] Yes No No No No Bouma et al. [65] Yes No No No No Derner et al. [59] No Yes No No No Luján Soto et al. [69] Yes No No No No Luján Soto et al. [71] Yes No No No No Mason et al. [61] Yes No No No No Pokupec et al. [70] Yes No No No No Preite et al. [74] Yes No No No No Reijneveld et al. [64] Yes No No No No Panagos and Orgiazzi [66]1No No No No No 1No specifications reported regarding the field of application. Since agriculture was the most frequent sector in the selected literature, it was possible to categorise SHLLs according to different production approaches: agroecology, sustainable intensification or Agriculture 4.0, conventional agriculture, regenerative agriculture, and organic agriculture. The agroecological approach, defined as a “transdisciplinary approach applied to the entire food system, from production to food consumption” [ 77 ], was present in the SHLLs described by Pokupec et al. [ 70 ], which aimed to foster agroecological transitions in Kenya and Tanzania. In Kenya, an integrated system combining aquaculture with associated field crops was developed, using urban wastewater recycled through bioreactors and powered by energy from photovoltaic panels. In Tanzania, a system integrating aquaculture and poultry farming was studied, where wastewater and poultry manure were Land 2025,14, 1974 9 of 20 used to enhance soil fertility. Specifically, in these SHLLs, the effectiveness of a Decision Support Tool was evaluated. This tool connected smallholder farmers with advisors and helped disseminate the benefits and outcomes of agroecological practices that integrate aquaculture with agriculture. These living labs were implemented within the European PrAEctiCe project, funded by the Horizon Europe programme. In the case of Simon-Rojo’s work [ 75 ], SHLLs were proposed as models to support the agroecological transition in Spain by addressing the issue of soil erosion. Sustainable intensification, also referred to as Agriculture 4.0, is an approach that seeks to increase agricultural output while minimising the ecological footprint [ 78 ]. This concept was addressed in the work of Preite et al. [ 74 ], where the authors studied the most effective predictive model—based in part on artificial intelligence—to estimate soil water content in a horticultural tomato-growing system. The regenerative agriculture approach, aimed to reverse soil degradation by enhancing biodiversity, increasing productivity, and improving the supply of ES [ 79 , 80 ], was described in the work of Luján Soto et al. [ 71 ]. In this study, a method for visual soil assessment was co-developed and co-evaluated through Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation, a component of Participatory Action Research. The study was conducted in arid areas of Murcia and Andalusia, Spain, and contributed to the development of practical tools for implementing SHLLs by involving farmers directly in the co-production and co-assessment of innovations. The final important aspect in the agricultural application of SHLLs emerged from the work of Bouma et al. [ 62 ], followed by the study by Reijneveld et al. [ 64 ]. The authors presented a tool designed to assess SHLLs in the Dutch agricultural context; however, it is, in principle, replicable worldwide with appropriate adaptations. Specifically, the authors correlated the ES provided by agricultural soils, including soil health, with the SDGs (Figure 2). They defined critical indicators and thresholds that allow for the evaluation of SHLL performance, the status of SHLLs, and the potential transition to Soil LHs, provided all indicators yield positive results, following the principle of ‘one out, all out’. For farmers, this tool offered concrete goals to pursue and a way to assess the effectiveness of the practices they adopted. Additionally, the authors selected specific indicators aligned with the SDGs, thereby providing a valuable framework for evaluating the contribution of farms toward achieving the objectives of the 2030 Agenda, the European Green Deal, and the Common Agricultural Policy 2021–2027. Moving into the post-industrial context, this was explicitly addressed by the SHLL developed in Turin as part of the European project proGIreg (Productive Green Infrastructures for Urban Regeneration) [ 67 ]. In this SHLL, Technosol was designed as a Nature-Based Solution (NBS) for urban regeneration. Specifically, the co-innovation process focused on studying a substrate composed of building earth materials sourced from construction sites (particles smaller than 2 cm), derived from organic waste, particularly plant waste, natural zeolites, mainly chabazite, and natural mycorrhizae (Glomus sp. GB67, G. mosseae GP11 and G. viscosum GC11). Soil restoration is likely the most significant task for post-industrial SHLLs, as it opens the possibility of reusing restored soils for recultivation and rewilding, thereby providing a test for the validity of the proposed solutions. This is an emerging topic that is expected to be addressed frequently by SHLLs in the near future [81]. In the urban and peri-urban context, alongside the work of Ascione et al. [ 67 ], the study by Bonifazi et al. [ 68 ] must be mentioned. In this case, an SHLL was implemented to co-assess indicators related to urban sprawl, with a particular focus on soil sealing in the Apulia Region, Italy. Additionally, the work of Simon-Rojo [ 75 ] was noteworthy, where living labs were proposed as tools in urban and peri-urban areas to reduce environmental pressure and mitigate soil erosion. Land 2025,14, 1974 16 of 20 SHLL Soil Health Living Lab ULL Urban Living Lab UN United Nations Appendix A Appendix A.1 The literature search and the subsequent analysis and coding resulted in 22 documents that either totally or partially cover the topics under review (Table A1). Table A1. The characteristics of the documents selected for review: I (industry); R&E (research and education); PA (public administration); CSU (civil society and users); A (agriculture); PI (postindustrial); PU (peri-urban); MP (meadows and pasture); FNA (forests and natural areas); L (local), R (regional); CR (cross-regional); N (national); IN (international). Authors Definition Stakeholders Field of Application Scale of Application Countries Involved Arias-Navarro et al. [38] Reported I, R&E, CSU A, PI, PU, MP, FNA L, R EU (Member State) Ascione et al. [67] Not reported I, R&E, PA, CSU PI, PU L EU (Italy) Bonifazi et al. [68] Not reported I, R&E, PA, CSU PU R EU (Italy) Bouma [62] Reported R&E, PA, CSU A L EU (The Netherlands) Bouma [24] Reported R&E, CSU A L EU (The Netherlands) Bouma [76] Reported R&E A L EU (The Netherlands) Bouma and Reijneveld [37] Reported R&E, CSU A L EU (The Netherlands) Bouma and Veerman [73] Not reported R&E, CSU A L EU (Member State) Bouma et al. [63] Reported R&E, CSU A Not reported Not reported Bouma et al. [65] Reported R&E, CSU A L EU (The Netherlands) Derner et al. [59] Reported R&E, PA, CSU MP L, R, CR, N North America (USA) Löbmann et al. [35] Reported R&E, CSU A, PI, PU, MP, FNA L EU (Member State) Luján Soto et al. [69] Not reported I, R&E, PA, CSU A R EU (Spain) Luján Soto et al. [71] Not reported I, R&E, CSU A R EU (Spain) Mason et al. [61] Reported I, R&E, PA, CSU A L EU (France) Panagos and Orgiazzi [66] Not reported R&E Not reported I EU (Member State) Pokupec et al. [70] Not reported I, R&E, PA, CSU A L, I Africa (Kenya e Tanzania) Preite et al. [74] Not reported R&E, CSU A L EU (Italy) Reijneveld et al. [64] Reported R&E, CSU A L EU (The Netherlands) Simon-Rojo [75] Not reported PA, CSU A, PU, MP, FNA N EU (Spain) Sintayehu et al. [72] Not reported R&E, PA, CSU A, MP, FNA L Africa (Ethiopia) Williams [60] Reported I, R&E, PA, CSU MP, FNA CR Worldwide References 1. Schirpke, U.; Kohler, M.; Leitinger, G.; Fontana, V.; Tasser, E.; Tappeiner, U. Future Impacts of Changing Land-Use and Climate on Ecosystem Services of Mountain Grassland and Their Resilience. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017,26, 79–94. [CrossRef] 2. Helming, K.; Daedlow, K.; Paul, C.; Techen, A.; Bartke, S.; Bartkowski, B.; Kaiser, D.; Wollschläger, U.; Vogel, H. Managing Soil Functions for a Sustainable Bioeconomy—Assessment Framework and State of the Art. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018,29, 3112–3126. [CrossRef] 3. Kopittke, P.M.; Minasny, B.; Pendall, E.; Rumpel, C.; McKenna, B.A. Healthy Soil for Healthy Humans and a Healthy Planet. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024,54, 210–221. [CrossRef] Land 2025,14, 1974 17 of 20 4. Bach, E.; Wall, D. Trends in Global Biodiversity: Soil Biota and Processes. In Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; ISBN 978-0-12-409548-9. 5. Friedlingstein, P.; Jones, M.W.; O’Sullivan, M.; Andrew, R.M.; Bakker, D.C.E.; Hauck, J.; Le Quéré, C.; Peters, G.P.; Peters, W.; Pongratz, J.; et al. Global Carbon Budget 2021. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2022,14, 1917–2005. [CrossRef] 6. Chenu, C.; Angers, D.A.; Barré, P.; Derrien, D.; Arrouays, D.; Balesdent, J. Increasing Organic Stocks in Agricultural Soils: Knowledge Gaps and Potential Innovations. Soil Tillage Res. 2019,188, 41–52. [CrossRef] 7. Powlson, D.S.; Whitmore, A.P.; Goulding, K.W. Soil Carbon Sequestration to Mitigate Climate Change: A Critical Re-examination to Identify the True and the False. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2011,62, 42–55. [CrossRef] 8. Wang, Y.P.; Law, R.M.; Pak, B. A Global Model of Carbon, Nitrogen and Phosphorus Cycles for the Terrestrial Biosphere. Biogeosciences 2010,7, 2261–2282. [CrossRef] 9. Popp, J.; Lakner, Z.; Harangi-Rákos, M.; Fári, M. The Effect of Bioenergy Expansion: Food, Energy, and Environment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014,32, 559–578. [CrossRef] 10. Lal, R. Soil Degradation as a Reason for Inadequate Human Nutrition. Food Secur. 2009,1, 45–57. [CrossRef] 11. Veerman, C.; Pinto Correia, T.; Bastioli, C.; Biro, B.; Bouma, J.; Cienciala, E.; Emmett, B.; Frison, E.A.; Grand, A.; Hristov, L.; et al. Caring for Soil Is Caring for Life: Ensure 75% of Soils Are Healthy by 2030 for Food, People, Nature and Climate: Report of the Mission Board for Soil Health and Food; Publications Office, European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [CrossRef] 12. Blum, W.E. Basic Concepts: Degradation, Resilience, and Rehabilitation. In Methods for Assessment of Soil Degradation; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; pp. 1–16. 13. Bhattacharyya, R.; Ghosh, B.; Mishra, P.; Mandal, B.; Rao, C.; Sarkar, D.; Das, K.; Anil, K.; Lalitha, M.; Hati, K.; et al. Soil Degradation in India: Challenges and Potential Solutions. Sustainability 2015,7, 3528–3570. [CrossRef] 14. Pereira, P.; Barceló, D.; Panagos, P. Soil and Water Threats in a Changing Environment. Environ. Res. 2020,186, 109501. [CrossRef] 15. Abdo, H.G. Impacts of War in Syria on Vegetation Dynamics and Erosion Risks in Safita Area, Tartous, Syria. Reg. Environ. Change 2018,18, 1707–1719. [CrossRef] 16. Al-Awadhi, J.M.; Omar, S.A.; Misak, R.F. Land Degradation Indicators in Kuwait. Land Degrad. Dev. 2005,16, 163–176. [CrossRef] 17. Broomandi, P.; Guney, M.; Kim, J.R.; Karaca, F. Soil Contamination in Areas Impacted by Military Activities: A Critical Review. Sustainability 2020,12, 9002. [CrossRef] 18. Freije, A.M. Heavy Metal, Trace Element and Petroleum Hydrocarbon Pollution in the Arabian Gulf: Review. J. Assoc. Arab Univ. Basic Appl. Sci. 2015,17, 90–100. [CrossRef] 19. Hamidov, A.; Helming, K.; Bellocchi, G.; Bojar, W.; Dalgaard, T.; Ghaley, B.B.; Hoffmann, C.; Holman, I.; Holzkämper, A.; Krzeminska, D.; et al. Impacts of Climate Change Adaptation Options on Soil Functions: A Review of European Case-Studies. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018,29, 2378–2389. [CrossRef] 20. Noel, S.; Mikulcak, F.; Stewart, N.; Etter, H. Report for Policy and Decision Makers: Reaping Economic and Environmental Benefits from Sustainable Land Management. 2015. Available online: https://www.eld-initiative.org/fileadmin/ELD_Filter_Tool/ Publication_Report_for_Policy_and_Decision_Makers__Reviewed_/ELD-pm-report_08_web_72dpi.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2025). 21. FAO. Status of the World’s Soil Resources: Main Report; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. 22. Doran, J.W.; Sarrantonio, M.; Liebig, M.A. Soil Health and Sustainability. Adv. Agron. 1996,56, 2–55. 23. Doran, J.W.; Zeiss, M.R. Soil Health and Sustainability: Managing the Biotic Component of Soil Quality. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2000,15, 3–11. [CrossRef] 24. Bouma, J. The 5C’s of Soil Security Guiding Realization of Ecosystem Services in Line with the UN-SDGs. Soil Secur. 2023, 12, 100099. [CrossRef] 25. Bouma, J.; Montanarella, L.; Evanylo, G. The Challenge for the Soil Science Community to Contribute to the Implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Soil Use Manag. 2019,35, 538–546. [CrossRef] 26. Tóth, G.; Hermann, T.; Da Silva, M.R.; Montanarella, L. Monitoring Soil for Sustainable Development and Land Degradation Neutrality. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018,190, 57. [CrossRef] 27. FAO, Food. The Future of Food and Agriculture: Alternative Pathways to 2050; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2018; Volume 60. 28. UN-Water. SDG 6 Synthesis Report 2018 on Water and Sanitation; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2018; p. 199. 29. Shukla, P.R.; Skea, J.; Buendia, E.C.; Masson-Delmotte, V.; Pörtner, H.-O.; Roberts, D.C.; Zhai, P.; Slade, R.; Connors, S.; van Diemen, R.; et al. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Manage-ment, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. 30. FAO; ITPS; GSBI; SCBD; EC. State of Knowledge of Soil Biodiversity—Status, Challenges and Potentialities, Report 2020; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [CrossRef] 31. Bora, S.; Ceccacci, I.; Delgado, C.; Townsend, R. Food Security and Conflict; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. Land 2025,14, 1974 18 of 20 32. European Commission (EC). EU Missions: A Soil Deal for Europe. 100 Living Labs and Lighthouses to Lead the Transition towards Healthy Soils by 2030. Implementation Plan. Working Document of the European Commission 2021. Available online: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/1517488e-767a-4f47-94a0-bd22197d18fa_en? filename=soil_mission_implementation_plan_final.pdf (accessed on 17 February 2025). 33. European Commission (EC). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Soil Monitoring and Resilience. COM/2023/416 Final 2023. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:01978f53-1b4f-11ee806b-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (accessed on 17 February 2025). 34. Panagos, P.; Borrelli, P.; Jones, A.; Robinson, D.A. A 1 Billion Euro Mission: A Soil Deal for Europe. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2024,75, e13466. [CrossRef] 35. Löbmann, M.T.; Maring, L.; Prokop, G.; Brils, J.; Bender, J.; Bispo, A.; Helming, K. Systems Knowledge for Sustainable Soil and Land Management. Sci. Total Environ. 2022,822, 153389. [CrossRef] 36. Malekpour, S.; Allen, C.; Sagar, A.; Scholz, I.; Persson, Å.; Miranda, J.J.; Bennich, T.; Dube, O.P.; Kanie, N.; Madise, N.; et al. What Scientists Need to Do to Accelerate Progress on the SDGs. Nature 2023,621, 250–254. [CrossRef] 37. Bouma, J.; Reijneveld, J.A. How Meeting the Ten Pedometrics Challenges Can Deliver Healthy-Soil Contributions to SDG-Related Ecosystem Services. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2024,75, e13550. [CrossRef] 38. Arias-Navarro, C.; Panagos, P.; Jones, A.; Amaral, M.J.; Schneegans, A.; Van Liedekerke, M.; Wojda, P.; Montanarella, L. Forty Years of Soil Research Funded by the European Commission: Trends and Future. A Systematic Review of Research Projects. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2023,74, e13423. [CrossRef] 39. Cascone, G.; Scuderi, A.; Guarnaccia, P.; Timpanaro, G. Promoting Innovations in Agriculture: Living Labs in the Development of Rural Areas. J. Clean. Prod. 2024,443, 141247. [CrossRef] 40. Swinkels, I.C.S.; Huygens, M.W.J.; Schoenmakers, T.M.; Oude Nijeweme-D’Hollosy, W.; Van Velsen, L.; Vermeulen, J.; SchooneHarmsen, M.; Jansen, Y.J.; Van Schayck, O.C.; Friele, R.; et al. Lessons Learned From a Living Lab on the Broad Adoption of eHealth in Primary Health Care. J. Med. Internet Res. 2018,20, e83. [CrossRef] 41. Thordardottir, B.; Malmgren Fänge, A.; Lethin, C.; Rodriguez Gatta, D.; Chiatti, C. Acceptance and Use of Innovative Assistive Technologies among People with Cognitive Impairment and Their Caregivers: A Systematic Review. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 9196729. [CrossRef] 42. Mbatha, S.P.; Musango, J.K. A Systematic Review on the Application of the Living Lab Concept and Role of Stakeholders in the Energy Sector. Sustainability 2022,14, 14009. [CrossRef] 43. Fuglsang, L.; Hansen, A.V.; Mergel, I.; Røhnebæk, M.T. Living Labs for Public Sector Innovation: An Integrative Literature Review. Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 58. [CrossRef] 44. Evans, J.; Jones, R.; Karvonen, A.; Millard, L.; Wendler, J. Living Labs and Co-Production: University Campuses as Platforms for Sustainability Science. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015,16, 1–6. [CrossRef] 45. Zen, I.S. Exploring the Living Learning Laboratory. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2017,18, 939–955. [CrossRef] 46. Paskaleva, K.A. Enabling the Smart City: The Progress of City e-Governance in Europe. Int. J. Innov. Reg. Dev. 2009,1, 405–422. [CrossRef] 47. Voytenko, Y.; McCormick, K.; Evans, J.; Schliwa, G. Urban Living Labs for Sustainability and Low Carbon Cities in Europe: Towards a Research Agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,123, 45–54. [CrossRef] 48. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021,372, n71. [CrossRef] 49. Sutton, A.; Clowes, M.; Preston, L.; Booth, A. Meeting the Review Family: Exploring Review Types and Associated Information Retrieval Requirements. Health Inf. Libr. J. 2019,36, 202–222. [CrossRef] 50. Grant, M.J.; Booth, A. A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 2009,26, 91–108. [CrossRef] 51. Hossain, M.; Leminen, S.; Westerlund, M. A Systematic Review of Living Lab Literature. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,213, 976–988. [CrossRef] 52. Tawfik, G.M.; Dila, K.A.S.; Mohamed, M.Y.F.; Tam, D.N.H.; Kien, N.D.; Ahmed, A.M.; Huy, N.T. A Step by Step Guide for Conducting a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Simulation Data. Trop. Med. Health 2019,47, 46. [CrossRef] 53. Feurstein, K.; Hesmer, A.; Hribernik, K.A.; Thoben, K.-D.; Schumacher, J. Living Labs: A New Development Strategy. In European Living Labs—A New Approach for Human Centric Regional Innovation; Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin: Berlin, Germany, 2008; pp. 1–14. 54. Almirall, E.; Wareham, J. Living Labs: Arbiters of Midand Ground-Level Innovation. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2011,23, 87–102. [CrossRef] 55. Bergvall-Kåreborn, B.; Eriksson, C.I.; Ståhlbröst, A.; Svensson, J. A Milieu for Innovation: Defining Living Labs. In Proceedings of the ISPIM Innovation Symposium, New York, NY, USA, 6–9 December 2009. Land 2025,14, 1974 19 of 20 56. Veeckman, C.; Schuurman, D.; Leminen, S.; Westerlund, M. Linking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes: Towards a Conceptual Framework. TIM Review 2013,3, 6–15. [CrossRef] 57. Hyysalo, S.; Hakkarainen, L. What Difference Does a Living Lab Make? Comparing Two Health Technology Innovation Projects. CoDesign 2014,10, 191–208. [CrossRef] 58. Haddaway, N.R.; Page, M.J.; Pritchard, C.C.; McGuinness, L.A. PRISMA2020: An R Package and Shiny App for Producing PRISMA 2020-compliant Flow Diagrams, with Interactivity for Optimised Digital Transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2022,18, e1230. [CrossRef] 59. Derner, J.D.; Smart, A.J.; Toombs, T.P.; Larsen, D.; McCulley, R.L.; Goodwin, J.; Sims, S.; Roche, L.M. Soil Health as a Transformational Change Agent for US Grazing Lands Management. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2018,71, 403–408. [CrossRef] 60. Williams, S.E. A Review and Analysis of Rangeland and Wildland Soil Health. Sustainability 2024,16, 2867. [CrossRef] 61. Mason, E.; Cornu, S.; Chenu, C. Stakeholders’ Point of View on Access to Soil Knowledge in France. What Are the Opportunities for Further Improvement? Geoderma Reg. 2023,35, e00716. [CrossRef] 62. Bouma, J. Transforming Living Labs into Lighthouses: A Promising Policy to Achieve Land-Related Sustainable Development. SOIL 2022,8, 751–759. [CrossRef] 63. Bouma, J.; Pinto-correia, T.; Veerman, C. Assessing the Role of Soils When Developing Sustainable Agricultural Production Systems Focused on Achieving the Un-sdgs and the Eu Green Deal. Soil Syst. 2021,5, 56. [CrossRef] 64. Reijneveld, J.A.; Geling, M.; Geling, E.; Bouma, J. Transforming Agricultural Living Labs into Lighthouses Contributing to Sustainable Development as Defined by the UN-SDGs. Soil Syst. 2024,8, 79. [CrossRef] 65. Bouma, J.; de Haan, J.; Dekkers, M.-F.S. Exploring Operational Procedures to Assess Ecosystem Services at Farm Level, Including the Role of Soil Health. Soil Syst. 2022,6, 34. [CrossRef] 66. Panagos, P.; Orgiazzi, A. Let’s Give a Voice to Young Soil Researchers. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2023,74, e13441. [CrossRef] 67. Ascione, G.S.; Cuomo, F.; Mariotti, N.; Corazza, L. Urban Living Labs, Circular Economy and Nature-Based Solutions: Ideation and Testing of a New Soil in the City of Turin Using a Multi-Stakeholder Perspective. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2021,1, 545–562. [CrossRef] 68. Bonifazi, A.; Sannicandro, V.; Attardi, R.; Di Cugno, G.; Torre, C.M. Countryside vs City: A User-Centered Approach to Open Spatial Indicators of Urban Sprawl. In Computational Science and Its Applications—ICCSA 2016; Gervasi, O., Murgante, B., Misra, S., Rocha, A.M.A.C., Torre, C.M., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O., Stankova, E., Wang, S., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 9789, pp. 161–176. ISBN 978-3-319-42088-2. 69. Luján Soto, R.; Cuéllar Padilla, M.; Rivera Méndez, M.; Pinto-Correia, T.; Boix-Fayos, C.; De Vente, J. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation to Enable Social Learning, Adoption, and out-Scaling of Regenerative Agriculture. Ecol. Soc. 2021,26, art29. [CrossRef] 70. Pokupec, D.; Lešnik, T.; Borec, A. Agroecology Principles in Aquaculture: A Case Study of East Africa. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2024, 25, 800–806. [CrossRef] 71. Luján Soto, R.; de Vente, J.; Cuéllar Padilla, M. Learning from Farmers’ Experiences with Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of Regenerative Agriculture Based on Visual Soil Assessment. J. Rural Stud. 2021,88, 192–204. [CrossRef] 72. Sintayehu, D.W.; Kassa, A.K.; Tessema, N.; Girma, B.; Alemayehu, S.; Hassen, J.Y. Drought Characterization and Potential of Nature-Based Solutions for Drought Risk Mitigation in Eastern Ethiopia. Sustain. Switz. 2023,15, 11613. [CrossRef] 73. Bouma, J.; Veerman, C.P. Developing Management Practices in: “Living Labs” That Result in Healthy Soils for the Future, Contributing to Sustainable Development. Land 2022,11, 2178. [CrossRef] 74. Preite, L.; Paini, A.; Vignali, G. Artificial Intelligence-Based Soil Moisture Estimation Using a Combination of in-Situ Measurements and Open-Source Data. In Proceedings of the 10th International Food Operations & Processing Simulation Workshop, FOODOPS 2024, Tenerife, Spain, 18–20 September 2024; Cal-Tek: Rende, Italy, 2024; pp. 1–8. [CrossRef] 75. Simon-Rojo, M. The Role of Ecosystem Services in the Design of Agroecological Transitions in Spain. Ecosyst. Serv. 2023,61, 101531. [CrossRef] 76. Bouma, J. The Role of Hydropedology When Aiming for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Vadose Zone J. 2024, 23, e20269. [CrossRef] 77. Francis, C.; Lieblein, G.; Gliessman, S.; Breland, T.A.; Creamer, N.; Harwood, R.; Salomonsson, L.; Helenius, J.; Rickerl, D.; Salvador, R.; et al. Agroecology: The Ecology of Food Systems. J. Sustain. Agric. 2003,22, 99–118. [CrossRef] 78. Rockström, J.; Williams, J.; Daily, G.; Noble, A.; Matthews, N.; Gordon, L.; Wetterstrand, H.; DeClerck, F.; Shah, M.; Steduto, P.; et al. Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture for Human Prosperity and Global Sustainability. Ambio 2017,46, 4–17. [CrossRef] 79. Rhodes, C.J. Feeding and Healing the World: Through Regenerative Agriculture and Permaculture. Sci. Prog. 2012,95, 345–446. [CrossRef] 80. Rhodes, C.J. The Imperative for Regenerative Agriculture. Sci. Prog. 2017,100, 80–129. [CrossRef] 81. SOILL; Maring, L.; Ellen, G.; Prieto, C. FACTSHEET—EU Soil Mission Living Labs and Lighthouses for Soil Health: Industrial Land Use. Zenodo 2025. [CrossRef] Land 2025,14, 1974 20 of 20 82. Holechek, J.; Pieper, C.H.; Herbel, C.H. Range Management: Principles and Practices. In Range Management. Principles and Practices; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 2010. 83. Oliver, M.; Deal, R.; Smith, N.; Blahna, D.; Kline, J. What People Value: An Ecosystem Services Approach to Managing Public Lands. PNW Sci. Find. 2016,188, 1–5. 84. Driver, B.L.; Dustin, D.; Baltic, T.; Elsner, G.; Peterson, G. Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic. J. Leis. Res. 1997,29, 353. [CrossRef] 85. SOILL; Monroy, F.; Prieto, C. FACTSHEET—EU Soil Mission Living Labs and Lighthouses for Soil Health: Natural and SemiNatural Land Use. Zenodo 2025. [CrossRef] 86. Cherubin, M.R.; Pinheiro, C.R., Jr.; Freitas Nogueira Souza, L.; Pecci Canisares, L.; Osório Ferreira, T.; Pellegrino Cerri, C.E.; Minasny, B.; Smith, P. Global blind spots in soil health research overlap with environmental vulnerability hotspots. Comm. Earth Environ. 2025,6, 651. [CrossRef] 87. Taskin, E.; Rastorgueva, N.; Foley, L.; Noto, R.; Borruso, L.; Cesco, S.; Mimmo, T. Living labs for sustainable soil management: A systematic review of global practices and perspectives. J. Soils Sediments 2025. [CrossRef] 88. European Commission (EC). EU Mission: A Soil Deal for Europe. Available online: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa. eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/eu-missions-horizon-europe/ soil-deal-europe_en (accessed on 4 July 2025). 89. SOILL-Startup About US. Available online: https://soill2030.eu/about-us (accessed on 4 July 2025). 90. SOILL-Startup Map of Soil Health Initiatives. Available online: https://soill2030.eu/map-soil-health-initiatives (accessed on 4 July 2025). 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.