Living Labs for Future Healthy Soils: A Review

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 SOILL-Startup 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.

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 (CO₂, N₂O, and CH₄), 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 amount is four times greater than the carbon stored in global vegetation, twice that in the atmosphere, and 160 times the current annual anthropogenic CO₂ 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 [14,15,16,17,18]. 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 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 SOILL-Startup project (HORIZON-MISS-2023-SOIL-SGA-01). The work followed the guidelines proposed by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 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 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 multi-step screening process, the 22 chosen references can be considered the most representative of the composition and functioning of SHLLs.

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. 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.
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.

). 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.

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.

3.2. Stakeholders

Compared to the 4Ps model found in the literature, the publications reviewed include stakeholders to varying degrees (

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

). 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.

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 some authors [24,35,37,59,62,63,64,65,73,74,76], SHLLs are the result of collaboration between academia and farmers, paving the way for a participatory governance model. In contrast, other authors [38,60,61,67,68,69,70,71,72,75] 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. 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/Peri-Urban 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] 1	No	No	No	No	No

¹ No specifications reported regarding the field of application.

). 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.

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 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.

Meadows and pastures were addressed in various SHLLs across different geographical regions. In Sintayehu et al. [72], SHLLs were used to combat drought in Ethiopia by planting trees in arid areas as an NBS. Derner et al. [59] proposed SHLLs as a method for the sustainable management of pastures, with a focus on soil health. Although conceptual in nature, the authors presented concrete solutions and proposals based on existing networks—such as the South Dakota Soil Health Coalition—and collaborations with local, state, and national organisations (e.g., grazing associations, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Resource Conservation Districts, livestock associations, and the National Grazing Lands Coalition), as well as conservation and environmental organisations (e.g., the Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and the Noble Foundation). The approach outlined by Derner et al. [59] was further developed by Williams [60], who expanded its application to a global scale. Williams also proposed the use of SHLLs for soils in forested and natural areas under extensive management. In this context, SHLLs were envisioned as a method for the proper management of forest soils, shrublands, and tundra. These ecosystems are associated with the production of meat, hides, and wood and play a vital role in the water cycle [82]. They are also essential for the provision of supporting (e.g., nutrient cycling and pedogenesis), regulating (e.g., flood, disease, and climate control) [83], and cultural ecosystem services [84]. Preserving soil health in these areas is, therefore, crucial for maintaining socio-ecological systems. The SOILL-Startup project has addressed this topic by providing a factsheet that summarises how SHLLs can approach this issue that is becoming increasingly important [85].

In Simon-Rojo [75], SHLLs were proposed to reduce pressure on soils in natural areas near urban centres, particularly by mitigating soil erosion. Sintayehu et al. [72] also applied SHLLs to evaluate the effectiveness of NBS against drought through reforestation, the use of fast-growing exotic forage plants, and other herbaceous species aimed at creating or maintaining natural ecosystems.

Finally, given its multi-sectoral applicability, it is worth mentioning the work of Mason et al. [61], who proposed SHLLs as a tool for disseminating soil-related knowledge across all the aforementioned fields of application. Their approach also considered public administration, which can adopt this method for managing public soils. Similarly, Löbmann et al. [35] proposed SHLLs to develop methodologies that enhance the user-friendliness of soil management solutions, regardless of the specific field of application. This approach also allows for the integration of informal knowledge, such as local empirical data. Examples showing different approaches to the integration of various types of land use in SHLLs include Arias-Navarro et al. [38], who focus on European projects that consider all types of land use; Löbmann et al. [35], who follow the integrative approach of the European Mission A Soil Deal for Europe; and Simon-Rojo [75], who concentrates on specific solutions to promote the agroecological transition at the state level in Spain, without considering other geographic areas in Europe.

3.4. Scale of Application

While SHLLs are, by definition, site-specific, they can also be scaled up to regional, national, or international levels, depending on the area involved or the network to which they belong (

Table 4. The scale and site of application of SHLLs in the reviewed documents.

Authors	Scale of Application	Site of Application
Arias-Navarro et al. [38]	Local and regional	Different sites
Ascione et al. [67]	Local	Urban context
Bonifazi et al. [68]	Regional	Different sites
Bouma [62]	Local	Farm
Bouma [24]	Local	Farm
Bouma [76]	Local	Farm
Bouma and Reijneveld [37]	Local	Farm
Bouma and Veerman [73]	Local	Farm
Bouma et al. [63]	Not reported	Not reported
Bouma et al. [65]	Local	Farm
Derner et al. [59]	Local, regional, cross-regional, national	Different sites
Löbmann et al. [35]	Local	Different sites
Luján Soto et al. [69]	Regional	Farm
Luján Soto et al. [71]	Regional	Farm
Mason et al. [61]	Local	Farm
Panagos and Orgiazzi [66]	International	Not reported
Pokupec et al. [70]	Local and international	Farm
Preite et al. [74]	Local	Farm
Reijneveld et al. [64]	Local	Farm
Simon-Rojo [75]	National	Different sites
Sintayehu et al. [72]	Local	Different sites
Williams [60]	Cross-regional	Different sites

). The scale of SHLL application varies, ranging from a single site to cross-regional, national, and international networks. Most applications are local, typically involving farms or urban areas, while regional and international implementations are less common.

3.5. Countries Involved

Most of the SHLLs discussed in the literature were designed in Europe, with fewer examples from Africa and North America. Nevertheless, the model proposed by Williams [60] may be applicable to all extensively managed areas worldwide (e.g., forests, grasslands, tundra, and shrublands). In Africa, the SHLLs referenced included concrete examples from Kenya, Tanzania, and Ethiopia. In North America, the focus was on the United States. For Europe, a more detailed analysis was possible due to the higher number of publications. In this case, the reviewed documents presented examples of both concrete and conceptual SHLLs at the national level (Italy, France, Spain, and The Netherlands), as well as across the EU territory (

Table 5. The continents and countries involved in the actual or conceptual application of SHLLs in the reviewed documents.

Authors	Continent	Country
Arias-Navarro et al. [38]	Europe	UE Member States
Ascione et al. [67]	Europe	Italy
Bonifazi et al. [68]	Europe	Italy
Bouma [62]	Europe	The Netherlands
Bouma [24]	Europe	The Netherlands
Bouma [76]	Europe	The Netherlands
Bouma and Reijneveld [37]	Europe	The Netherlands
Bouma and Veerman [73]	Europe	UE Member States
Bouma et al. [63]	Not reported	Not reported
Bouma et al. [65]	Europe	The Netherlands
Derner et al. [59]	North America	USA
Löbmann et al. [35]	Europe	UE Member States
Luján Soto et al. [69]	Europe	Spain
Luján Soto et al. [71]	Europe	Spain
Mason et al. [61]	Europe	France
Panagos and Orgiazzi [66]	Europe	UE Member State
Pokupec et al. [70]	Africa	Kenya, Tanzania
Preite et al. [74]	Europe	Italy
Reijneveld et al. [64]	Europe	The Netherlands
Simon-Rojo [75]	Europe	Spain
Sintayehu et al. [72]	Africa	Ethiopia
Williams [60]	Worldwide	Not reported

).

SHLL experiences in Africa are linked to the EU in terms of their design and funding. Promoting these kinds of initiatives presents challenges related to both stakeholder participation and financial sustainability due to significant differences in environmental policies and land use across the countries involved. Research institutions from different countries are more likely to share perspectives and methodologies than, for example, farmers, companies, and policymakers, who operate in entirely different contexts. The transfer and adoption of solutions to improve soil health may become a major obstacle in the implementation of SHLLs in developing countries with growing economies, where soil is a vital resource not only for agricultural production but also for urban expansion and the development of new transport and industrial infrastructure. Analysing the types of stakeholders that can be involved in SHLLs is another key aspect to consider when designing participatory governance models that are both functional and capable of ensuring effective information exchange among living lab partners.

3.6. Limits of the Bibliographic Research

Since the use of SHLLs is still in a developing phase, a potential methodological limitation of the present review regards the exclusion of materials from the grey literature or web pages of EU and non-EU projects that are based on this approach. Given the limited number of available documents, the present work may contain gaps that can only be addressed through future studies, both conceptual and case-based. Most of the existing studies focused on the EU, resulting in a view that does not fully capture the complexity of other contexts, whether pedoclimatic or socioeconomic. The literature on soil health is much more extensive and is growing faster than that on living labs [86,87], only a small portion of which addresses soil-related issues. In addition, nearly all the reviewed studies referred to SHLLs in the agricultural sector, with only a few examples from other sectors, despite their potential role in global soil health. This initial focus on agricultural soils is reflected in the most addressed types of soil indicators, which include soil structure, organic matter, biodiversity, nutrient content, water regime, and pollution [73]. In contrast, aspects related to soil health in urban contexts—such as soil sealing and soil restoration—are not yet present in the available SHLL literature. The relatively small attention given to the role of civil society in the reviewed documents represents a further limitation. Specifically, this results in a knowledge overview that omits a key actor—civil society—which can influence all others through democratic participation and consumer behaviour.

3.7. The SOILL-Startup Project

The analysis of the papers reveals that SHLLs can differ in their definitions, composition, fields, and scales of application, yet they share the common objective of safeguarding soil resources. As discussed in the previous sections, several documents have addressed the topic of SHLLs at the European level, citing the specific mission of the Horizon Europe programme ‘A Soil Deal for EU’, which explicitly refers to SHLLs as a means to achieve the goal of healthy soils by 2030 [85,88]. However, none of the articles addressed the existence of a network of SHLLs within the EU. To help bridge this gap, the EU created, in 2023, the Support Structure for Soil Health Living Labs and Lighthouses (SOILL). The SOILL-Startup project, Startup of the SOILL support structure for SOIL Living Labs (project 101145592, HORIZON-MISS-2023-SOIL-SGA-01) (Figure 3), aims to promote the presence and dissemination of SHLLs through three key actions: (1) fostering a network; (2) providing dedicated support; (3) facilitating collaboration.

The project consortium consists of 28 partners from 14 European countries, with the ENoLL as the lead partner. It includes private companies, international organisations, trade associations, research centres, and universities. As stated on the project website [89], SOILL-Startup does not begin from scratch but builds on the legacy of other projects implemented both before and after the launch of the Soil Mission, including PREPSOIL—Preparing for the ‘Soil Deal for Europe’ Mission, and NATI00NS—national engagement activities to support the launch of the Mission ‘A Soil Deal for Europe’ 100 Living Labs and Lighthouses. Through all the activities foreseen in the project, SOILL-Startup will contribute to achieving the various goals set by the EU: the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Soil Mission, and the European Green Deal.

Another noteworthy aspect of the project is the production of a map that displays all the SHLLs and LHs established both within the EU territory and abroad (Figure 4). This tool is highly valuable for disseminating experiences that can be replicated in contexts with similar pedoclimatic and socioeconomic characteristics, or where similar needs exist. Moreover, the ability to identify different initiatives based on land use enhances the replicability of these innovation ecosystems beyond agricultural applications while still acknowledging their critical importance. The project, therefore, enables the dissemination of SHLLs through a systemic and standardised approach, promoting the spread of best practices across the EU and beyond, with the potential to establish an international network. In fact, the geographical impact can be extended further by proposing SHLLs in other contexts, either through the direct inclusion of non-EU partners in European projects or via academic collaborations (e.g., universities and research centres), which can introduce this approach to civil society actors (e.g., NGOs) and policymakers worldwide.

4. Conclusions

We show that SHLLs are evolving entities with diverse components that characterise their structure and function. In general, an SHLL can be defined as a network of soil stakeholders that operates in a specific geographic area, using a participatory governance model to create and adopt solutions and practices aimed at improving soil health. A single SHLL can carry out activities in multiple locations, and some of these may evolve into LHs—defined as sites of proven success for innovations that preserve and enhance soil health—if certain indicators are met. These indicators were initially proposed based on field experience in The Netherlands, with potential applicability across the EU territory. Agricultural lands play, for now, the main role in the development of SHLLs. In the EU context, SOILL and the SOILL-Startup project represent a new approach aimed at supporting the development of an international network of SHLLs, contributing to the achievement of the environmental objectives set by the EU in alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the European Green Deal.

The analysis of available sources on SHLLs has provided a detailed picture of the current State of the Art on this topic while also offering insights for critical reflection. The main issues identified in the literature concern the governance model (e.g., the limited involvement of civil society), the scope of application (e.g., few studies on post-industrial and peri-urban soils), implementation outside the EU (e.g., stakeholder perspectives on this approach are not considered), economic sustainability after the end of project funding, and the absence of SHLL assessment tools, which hinders critical analysis, monitoring, and improvement. All these issues deserve further investigation in future research to fully realise the potential of this participatory approach to soil health management. Overall, past and current experiences indicate that SHLLs are an emerging tool for promoting synergies between different soil stakeholders, adopting a multidisciplinary approach to protect soil health in agricultural, urban/peri-urban, post-industrial, meadows and pastures, and natural and forest contexts.