European Geologist Journal 57

Deep planning: improving underground developments through inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration on geosystem services

 

by Jenny Norrman 1*, Olof Taromi Sandström 2, Maria de Lourdes Melo Zurita 3, Fredrik Mossmark 2, Emrik Lundin Frisk 1, Lorena Melgaço 4, Tore Söderqvist 5, Paula Lindgren 2, Yevheniya Volchko 1, Victoria Svahn 6

1  Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, 

2  Geological Survey of Sweden,

3  University of New South Wales, Australia, 

4  Lund University, Sweden, 

5  Holmboe & Skarp, Sweden, 

6  Land Development Department, City of Gothenburg,

Contact: jenny.norrman@chalmers.se

Abstract

The rapid urbanisation and global need for resources have led to an increased use of the underground, resulting in conflicting interests and an urgent need for subsurface planning. The concept of geosystem services is suggested for communicating the diverse values of the subsurface, and to support subsurface planning for ensuring sustainable and equitable underground developments. The UNDER project explores this concept, involving researchers from academia, governmental and municipal authorities, and consultancies, to open conversations about sustainable underground management, collaborate with municipal authorities, and contribute to new theoretical knowledge for societal use. The transdisciplinary approach aims to provide a better understanding of geosystem services in Swedish planning practices, involving multiple levels of governance and different geographies.

Cite as: Norrman, J., Taromi Sandström, O., Melo Zurita, M., Mossmark, F., Lundin Frisk, E., Melgaço, L., Söderqvist, T., Lindgren, P., Volchko, Y., & Svahn, V. (2024). Deep planning: improving underground developments through inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration on geosystem services. European Geologist, 57. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12205943

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

1. Introducing geosystem services in underground developments

Claims on the subsurface and its resources are sometimes incompatible, and short-term uses can conflict with long-term ones, hindering future possibilities. Urbanisation has led to increased use of the subsurface in urban areas (e.g., for relieving the congested surface by placing various kinds of infrastructure below ground and thus creating intense demand for underground space [1,2]). The use of nature-based solutions in cities also often requires space in the subsurface, e.g. for tree roots to help create better microclimates and allow water to infiltrate and be stored, as well as to mitigate flooding. Besides the more traditional exploitation of underground resources for construction materials, minerals and metals, there is an increasing need for rare earth elements in the development of upcoming green technologies. Undergrounds are also increasingly used for thermal energy extraction, and heat and cold regulation, technologies for storage of e.g. hydrogen and carbon dioxide, in addition to more traditional storage in caverns. As a result, conflicting interests are likely to become more common [3,4]. As a multifunctional and finite resource, the subsurface should be managed in accordance with its full potential and its value to society, therefore subsurface planning becomes both increasingly challenging and urgently necessary to ensure sustainable and just developments [5]. This need is broadly acknowledged by practitioners, academia, and, to some extent, by policymakers, and, in some countries, met in emerging policies and regulations, e.g., Japan, Singapore, and Finland.

A difficulty with making the subsurface acknowledged in spatial planning is that the subsurface is often “out-of-sight-out-of-mind” for interested stakeholders, including decision-makers [6,7]. Instead, it is often perceived only as a source of risks and high costs. Such perception combined with the invisibility of the subsurface, and its resources, can hamper the understanding of it as a multifunctional resource that needs to be carefully managed. There have been several attempts to conceptualise the subsurface and its resources over the years [5] and geosystem services are suggested to be a promising conceptualisation for communicating the values of the subsurface [5,8-11]. Van Ree and van Beukering stressed the importance of integrating the concept of geosystem services into governance, policies, and legislation to ensure sustainable use of the subsurface [8].

The concept of geosystem services was suggested for making the abiotic parts of nature [12] and the subsurface more visible [8]. There is not yet a unified definition of geosystem services [9], but in 2016 van Ree and van Beukering defined geosystem services as “the goods and services that contribute to human well-being specifically those resulting from the subsurface” ([8], p. 34). Lundin Frisk et al. reviewed geosystem services available in the literature and summarised those that are suggested to be most relevant for the underground [9] (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Illustration of geosystem services from a subsurface perspective categorised into regulating, provisioning, cultural, and supporting services. Illustration by Emrik Lundin Frisk. The illustration is a further development of the material presented in [13].

Introduced in the 80s, the concept of ecosystem services is increasingly integrated into local, regional, and national policies and legislations [14,15] and is an object for standardisation [16] through international and national classification systems, as well as governmental initiatives to make the values of ecosystem services visible and acknowledged in decision-making. There are two rather different perspectives on the benefits of the ecosystem services concept: i) the possibility of ecosystem services as a tool to raise awareness and to integrate various perspectives or disciplines in environmental management; and ii) to integrate the ecosystems’ instrumental values for humans into project appraisal and environmental accounting by economic monetary valuation (CICES). It is suggested that the ecosystem services concept started as a bridge between ecological and economic science but has now become engaged with a wide range of disciplines, and as such, functions as a boundary object [17]. Boundary objects can be adapted to different contexts and views and are still robust enough to channel communication between, and framing of, different positions [17].

One common critique of the ecosystem services framework has been that beneficial services originating from abiotic systems are overlooked [12], particularly regarding the subsurface [8,18], and the concept of geosystem services is one response to this [19]. Similarly to ecosystem services, the geosystem service concept is hypothesised to function as a boundary object, transcending different fields and disciplines within a frame from which one can facilitate communication and cooperation between different groups needed for integrating the underground in planning [20].

The UNDER project aims to explore geosystem services to understand their societal impacts and benefits and how this concept can support subsurface planning. The project team represents an interdisciplinary group of researchers with different backgrounds: academia, governmental and municipal authorities, and consultancies. This short paper aims to present the various perspectives different disciplines may have on the concept of geosystem services to discuss why the exploration of the concept benefits from both inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration and why subsurface planning and management of underground resources could benefit from introducing this concept.

2. Perspectives on geosystem services

The idea of geosystem services as a boundary object can be illustrated by the different disciplinary perspectives represented in the project group. Table 1 presents the disciplinary perspectives on geosystem services as a concept, highlighting how it can help in understanding and facilitating conversations about the underground. The table also outlines some challenges associated with the concept.

Table 1: Disciplinary perspectives on the concept of geosystem services from the UNDER-project group.

Discipline Advantages and benefits Challenges
Geology,
including
engineering geology

A conceptualisation that shifts focus on the subsurface to be a resource, not only a problem, and communicating the multifunctionality of the subsurface.

A list of various geosystem services can provide a structure, or a checklist, to systematically assess effects on subsurface resources and to explore interdependencies.

There is a pedagogical challenge regarding risks (or disservices, [21]) which are also important to account for in planning.

The concept is a simplification (division into pieces of a cake, Figure 1) of complex and interdependent geological structures and processes that may counteract an understanding of the subsurface as a system.
Human
geography		 It brings the subsurface and subsurface planning as a topic of conversation in the field, emphasising their importance to understanding the relations between humans and non-humans and the inequalities embedded in these relations. Despite growing efforts to counter mainstream preferences for metrics and quantitative approaches and further the concept by considering cultural services, geosystem services could be more encompassing of other societal impacts, including justice-based conversations about the use of these spaces.
Environmental
economics		 A tool that enables a comprehensive understanding of the different ways in which changes in the subsurface affect human well-being. It reduces the risk of uninformed and therefore biased trade-offs between very visible and often market-priced geosystem services (such as geomaterials) and less visible ones (such as many regulating geosystem services). To avoid that a pedagogic tool encourages oversimplifications and single-disciplinary hubris (possibly resulting in severe biases in the results of economic analyses), instead of stimulating inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration and acknowledging complexity.
Land
management		 It can help to open up the subsurface as a multifunctional resource in an approachable and understandable way for non-experts and motivate the notion that planning also must be vertical downwards. The concept can give rise to curiosity and initiate valuable discussions with colleagues. It is still a complex concept and as such, it can be difficult to grasp. It can be easy to misinterpret geosystem services without at least some basic information accompanying this concept.

As actors belonging to different organisations and various disciplinary backgrounds in UNDER, there are thus diverse understandings and viewpoints of the subsurface and geosystem services in the project group. Such diversity is welcome, because it represents the complexity of the field and reflects the not straightforward character of decision-making processes when it comes to the subsurface. The inter- and transdisciplinary essence of UNDER enriches conversations across sectors of society and actors that are thinking with and developing the subsurface in their work.

One of the perspectives that the UNDER team brings is that of the Geological Survey of Sweden as a provider of geological data for societal needs, e.g. information about geomaterials, geo-energy and groundwater resources, but also as a governmental authority, that informs society about how to use geological resources sustainably. The concept of geosystem services can open the conversation about the variety of geological resources and create an understanding of the need for sustainable underground management.

Municipalities in Sweden have a legal responsibility to plan such that the land use is suitable given the prevailing conditions, therefore their perspective of subsurface management is essential. The larger cities in Sweden, like Gothenburg, are increasingly facing congestion of underground spaces, and tools, methods, and working processes are urgently needed to manage this. The UNDER project presents an opportunity to collaborate, which enables researchers to better understand the needs of municipal actors being important end users.

The environmental economics consultants’ perspective is to offer customers in the private and public sector scientifically sound analyses concerning an economically sustainable use of the environment, and there is therefore a need for an improved understanding of the different and sometimes conflicting ways in which the subsurface supports society.

Finally, from an academic perspective, investigating geosystem services as a concept can contribute to new theoretical knowledge (research) both to be used and implemented with and by society (utilisation) and to share with students (education).

3. Lessons learned from transdisciplinary collaboration

The project has used different avenues for interactions with stakeholders, including workshops with municipalities, one-on-one interviews with professionals involved in planning, and the distribution of a questionnaire to Swedish municipalities. The transdisciplinary work so far includes frequent exchanges with three municipalities in Sweden (Askersund, Gothenburg, Malmö) that have ongoing planning activities that impact geosystem services, these are being engaged with as case studies. The interviews and workshops have focussed on geosystem services in the case study areas, whereas the questionnaire was aimed at transferring knowledge to and collecting data from all 290 municipalities in Sweden. The input from non–geologists (both in our team and participants in interviews and workshops in the different case studies) is critical when testing if the concept of geosystem services can be understood. It was clear from follow-up conversations after the questionnaire responses were submitted, that some geosystem services can easily be misunderstood if they are not described properly, or descriptions are not read.

By conducting workshops, spaces to have conversations across multiple departments in the municipalities were created which incentivised a dialogue amongst different types of expertise and knowledge. This led to the validation that collective and transdisciplinary work can add value to the understanding of human and non-human relations, in this case in particular, geosystem services. Workshops also showed the relevance and importance of constant and open dialogues across the departments, as colleagues involved in the different stages of the planning process could finally share their knowledge and experience. Similar results were confirmed by feedback on the questionnaire. As the questions covered different aspects of the subsurface, often dealt with across different departments and different planning stages, the questionnaire has formed a basis for discussions among staff.

The interviews involved conversations with public servants from municipalities and gave deeper insights into subsurface aspects in their current planning practices. As a method, they showed the challenges of translating concepts within the municipality, and across sectors of society. For example, the fear that there is an overabundance of tools to measure ‘services’, even if the subsurface is not fully contemplated by these. Some of the learnings from these conversations also indicate that knowledge of the subsurface tends to be costly and that it requires a type of expertise that is rarely found within the municipality, having to engage with consultants to access such expertise. The subsurface again emerged as a space of uncertainties that is to be approached from a risk management perspective.

The transdisciplinary approach of UNDER is expected to provide a better basis for the understanding of the current and potential use of geosystem services in Swedish planning practices through engagement with planners, decision-makers and other stakeholders. Furthermore, the case studies, involving multiple levels of governance, different geographical regions, and planning levels will provide a deepened understanding of practices involving different geosystem services. This transdisciplinary approach will also contribute to the understanding of structures of governance and the different societal actors that are de facto involved in subsurface planning.

4. Concluding remarks – do we need yet another concept?

So, is it necessary to introduce a new concept to collaborate and to better manage the subsurface? One challenge with introducing geosystem services as a new concept is that it would take a long time for such a concept to gain momentum and have an impact on planning practices. Improved subsurface planning is however urgently needed. It would be faster to expand the ecosystem services concept, to also include geosystem services and to integrate it into already existing ecosystem services frameworks and tools. In practice, this is already done as many practitioners see the need for highlighting all of nature’s services and not only services from the biotic part [22,23] and indeed, the CICES framework has adopted an abiotic extension [16]. The interactions between ecosystems and geosystems [24] suggest that combining them into “nature systems” would better reflect the real-world complexity, but it would also challenge the users of existing methods and planning tools to think more holistically.

Should geosystem services be more broadly introduced, complementary frameworks may be needed depending on which definition of geosystem services would be applied [9]. If geosystem services are confined to services derived from the subsurface [8], then numerous services from abiotic non-subsurface parts of nature would not be included [12,25]. In such a case, parallel concepts are not only useful but needed, e.g. water system services for managing water resources [26].

Planning must account for multiple needs and therefore diverse expertise and knowledge are required. The handling of the subsurface, particularly during the early stages of planning when there are many uncertainties, is often difficult. These considerations are often pushed forward to handle at a later stage, when the more detailed design and implementation stages of development take place. However, it is important to design projects with the subsurface as an integral part of them from the beginning. This will not only save time and costs, but it will also allow for a planning practice that is not only responsive to risk, but that is interested in pursuing the opportunities of a more integrated and careful planning process. Here, geosystem services as a concept can support a broader understanding of this necessity by opening up dialogues across disciplines.

The collaborations in the UNDER project show the relevance of working in settings that bridge multiple sectors, disciplines, and expertise. The subsurface, and the concept of geosystem services as a boundary object, have formed a solid basis for these collaborations to emerge.

Funding: This research was funded by Formas, a Swedish research council for sustainable development, grant number 2021-00057.

Acknowledgements: The work conducted within the UNDER project would not have been possible without the engagement of the external actors at the case study municipalities.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Sterling, R., Admiraal, H., Bobylev, N., Parker, H., Godard, J.-P., Vähäaho, I., Rogers, C.D.F., Shi, X., Hanamura, T., 2012. Sustainability issues for underground space in urban areas. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Urban Design and Planning, 165 (4), pp. 241-254.
  2. Bobylev, N., 2009. Mainstreaming sustainable development into a city’s Master plan: A case of Urban Underground Space use (2009) Land Use Policy, 26 (4), pp. 1128-1137.
  3. Admiraal, J.B.M. 2006. A bottom-up approach to the planning of underground space. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 21.
  4. Dick, G., Eriksson, I., de Beer, J., Bonsor, H., & van der Lugt, P. 2019. Planning the city of tomorrow: Bridging the gap between urban planners and subsurface specialists. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 108, 327-335.
  5. Volchko, Y. Norrman, J., Ericsson, L.O., Nilsson, K.L., Markstedt, A., Öberg, M., Mossmark, F., Bobylev, N., Tengborg, P., Subsurface planning: Towards a common understanding of the subsurface as a multifunctional resource. Land Use Policy 90, 104316
  6. van der Meulen, M. J. Campbell, S. D. G., Lawrence, D. J., Lois Gonzalez, R. C., & van Campenhout, I. A. M., 2016. Out of sight out of mind? Considering the subsurface in urban planning-state of the art. C OST TU1206 Sub-Urban Report, TU1206-WG1-001.
  7. Mielby, S., Eriksson, I., Diarmad, S., Campbell, G., Lawrence, D., 2017. Opening up the subsurface for the cities of tomorrow – the subsurface in the planning process. Procedia Engineering, 209, pp. 12-25.
  8. van Ree, C. C. D. F., & van Beukering, P. J. H. 2016. Geosystem services: A concept in support of sustainable development of the subsurface. Ecosystem Services 20, 30-36.
  9. Lundin Frisk, E., Volchko, Y., Taromi Sandström, O., Söderqvist, T., Ericsson, L. O., Mossmark, F., … & Norrman, J. 2022. The geosystem services concept – What is it and can it support subsurface planning? Ecosystem Services 58, 101493.
  10. Bobylev, N., Syrbe, R.-U., Wende, W., 2022. Geosystem services in urban planning. (2022) Sustainable Cities and Society, 85, art. no. 104041.
  11. Kuchler, M., Craig-Thompson, A., Alofe, E., Tryggvason, A., 2024. SubCity: Planning for a sustainable subsurface in Stockholm. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 144, art. no. 105545.
  12. Gray, M. 2011. Other nature: geodiversity and geosystem services. Environmental Conservation 38, 271-274.
  13. Lundin-Frisk, Emrik (2023). Geosystem services to support decisions on subsurface use (Chalmers University of Technology: 2023:1) [Licentiate thesis, Chalmers University of Technology]. Chalmers University Publications Electronic Archive.
  14. Nordin, A.C. Hanson, H.I. & Alkan Olsson, J. 2017. Integration of the ecosystem services concept in planning documents from six municipalities in southwestern Sweden. Ecology and Society 22:26.
  15. Wamsler, C., Niven, L., Beery, T. H., Bramryd, T., Ekelund, N., Jönsson, K. I., … & Stålhammar, S. 2016. Operationalizing ecosystem-based adaptation: harnessing ecosystem services to buffer communities against climate change. Ecology and Society 21:31.
  16. Haines-Young, R. & Potschin-Young, M. 2018. Revision of the Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES V5.1): A Policy Brief. One Ecosystem 3, e27108.
  17. Ainscough, J., de Vries Lentsch, A., Metzger, M., Rounsevell, M., Schröter, M., Delbaere, B., … & Staes, J . 2019. Navigating pluralism: Understanding perceptions of the ecosystem services concept. Ecosystem Services 36, 100892.
  18. van Ree, C. C. D. F., Van Beukering, P. J. H., & Boekestijn, J. 2017. Geosystem services: A hidden link in ecosystem management. Ecosystem Services 26, 58-69.
  19. van der Meulen, E. S., Braat, L. C., & Brils, J. M. , E. S. et al. 2016. Abiotic flows should be inherent part of ecosystem services classification. Ecosystem Services 19, 1-5.
  20. von der Tann, L., Ritter, S., Hale, S., Langford, J., Salazar, S., 2021. From urban underground space (UUS) to sustainable underground urbanism (SUU): Shifting the focus in urban underground scholarship. Land Use Policy, 109, art. no. 105650.
  21. Hale, S.E., Ritter, S., Oen, A.M.P., Von Der Tann, L., 2021. Grounding Environmental Sciences: The Missing Link to the Urban Underground. Environmental Science and Technology, 55 (8), pp. 4197-4198.
  22. Ekologigruppen AB. (2015). Mapping of ecosystem services in the municipality of Uppland Väsby. ¨Basis for developing a plan for ecosystem Report to the municipality of Upplands Väsby, Upplands Väsby. https://tinyurl.com/MappingESupplandvasby (In Swedish: Kartläggning av ekosystemtjänster i Upplands Väsby kommun: Underlag till utvecklingsplan för ekosystemtjänster).
  23. Carlsson, C., Hedfors, J., & Fransson, A.-M. (2020). ekoGeokalkyl – for constructability and ecosystem services (Report U2-2016-07). Linkoping, Swedish Geotechnical Institute. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1502581/FULLTEXT01.pdf (In Swedish: ekoGeokalkyl – for byggbarhet och ekosystemtjäsnster).
  24. Fox, N., Graham, L.J., Eigenbrod, F., Bullock, J.M., Parks, K.E., 2020. Incorporating geodiversity in ecosystem service decisions. Ecosyst. People 16 (1), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1758214.
  25. Gray, M. 2018. The confused position of the geosciences within the “natural capital” and “ecosystem services” approaches. Ecosystem Services 34, 106-112.
  26. Gärtner, N., Lindhe, A., Wahtra, J., Söderqvist, T., Lång, L.O., Nordzell, H., Norrman, J., Rosén, L., 2022. Integrating ecosystem services into risk assessments for drinking water protection. Water 14 (8), 1180. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14081180.

This article has been published in European Geologist Journal 57 – Geology at the interdisciplinary nexus: Why does collaboration matter

Read here the full issue: