Posted on Authorea 20 Apr 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158740013.30326525 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. vrapro f5-0 er.I uoe ossdet xrm rcptto vnscnocroc every once occur can 2015c). events al., precipitation et irreversible extreme (Panagos considered t/ha to be 100 can due year over losses / of ha Europe, losses / In with t years 1 also years. than three soils greater 50-100 or loss shallow two of soil of any period case and rate a the formation over 2015). in slow very (ISPRA, and richest a layer productivity the has productive Soil of in and entire loss reduction the morphology the significant of its involves pedology, a loss Erosion than geology, irreversible with higher conditions. including the substance, climatic rate factors, organic to today. a various of and of with on territory part landscape soil the depends physical the of the phenomenon characteristics of shaping this vegetation part and of surface surface earth’s extent the the The of of removal modelling of the phenomenon to through contributing natural erosion, formation, many a organic from on is protection in depends offers erosion richer process condition Soil is this good which in functionality. of land topsoil soil magnitude a The of the that maintenance of understanding surface. the common removal earth’s is the the it of through but changing factors which, the phenomenon to natural contributes carbon, a is erosion Soil making decision loss, economic services, Introduction ecosystem erosion, soil consumption, land Keywords: Italy in use. growth land billion 2,4 upon consumption M over decision-making land from is 135 sustainable available that the over a loss 2018 that value support economic and an to average indicate 2012 to control an Results for associated is scenario for ha cover literature studies. accounting 31.500 land in JRC control in available different evaluated from values two 2018, derived due with the and service are 2012 replacement, are control between service parameters model erosion of the other in cost to while loss by Inputs the ISPRA, evaluated represent results. is to biophysical dimension assumed to InVEST economic is applied applying The years on adopted, reference based is consumption. two function is land Services between transport study Monitoring change to and The Copernicus-Land formula erosion RUSLE the avoided policies. topic, from The protection the data land the on using model. research on support ISPRA main information by to with provide produced community studies Accordingly to Italy the ecosystem is few programme. for for of purpose products conditions, assessment benefits cover The national of land use monitoring. the high-resolution loss consumption land from the and land results different consumption of presents land framework under study the of The costs in impact consumption. ISPRA control land by erosion to out due carried and impact services rates the of erosion issue soil the address addresses research much While Abstract 2020 28, April 1 Munaf`o Assennato Francesca loss Italy of in dimension control economic erosion and of biophysical on insight services an ecosystem provision: on impact consumption land Assessing ISPRA 1 1 ac D’Antona Marco , \ uoya.Tesuydmntae h motneo aun erosion valuing of importance the demonstrates study The euro/year. 1 ac iLeginio Di Marco , 1 1 nraStrollo Andrea , \ uoya,wt erosion with euro/year, 1 n Michele and , Posted on Authorea 20 Apr 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158740013.30326525 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. nteIaincs,asse fsaladlreitrssaon h raiaino ol a ogbe in been long has soils of urbanization the around interests to large way and a as small intended of not system is of a and quantification compensation. case, lost economic and Italian is trade The what the through of In value consumption. resources hidden non-renewable land support largely for to of the market useful reduction highlight a indicators to and build aim as provided providing the protection is soil, dimension, has soil services by estimation economic for lost provided loss and policies economic services processes and public ecosystem on biophysical main the This base the knowledge consumption. in improving land changes in of in of increase increase evaluation the consequent from the a resulting produces coverings ISPRA plant load. soil 2016, of a solid of Since capacity, alteration high forms infiltration the at strongly different water and even The in is outflows pattern reduction water and drainage soils. a surface natural vegetation, of entail the functionality of farming) of effective intensive capacity the modification compaction, protective soils, to sealing, the and erodible (e.g. on changes degradation highly cover depending land-use/land and erosion, to thin from linked for protection contrary, natural threshold tolerability the The the 1982). regions, On (McCormack, southern t/ha/year workable the in 2 easily region. threshold especially mountain- to territory and the this drops Romagna Italian of soils the according those condition, Emilia of deep as sectors sustainable, such Italian very of large inputs, characterizing not for at matter areas organic considered mm/year) Looking and agricultural 1 is fertilizations with hilly about which improved t/ha/year. be to to 11,2 can (corresponding that up is substrates, tolerable threshold (USDA) considered level in Service be values erosion Conservation could high that Soil the drought. and out US of against slopes pointed to t/ha/year steep periods be 8.77 of long combination of must after values the precipitation It with to intense rate due from countries, loss resulting erosivity, EU soil in rainfall highest t/ha/year contrary,the the (SDR). 2.46 presents the coefficient of Italy on transport average deposition states, sediment while new an member the a (93.5%), by 28 particular, driven land the RUSLE In is agricultural Among from which soil. surplus in expected that agricultural sediment previously occurs indicate by global erosion a eroded scale, erosion suffer gross sediments European gross areas the of semi-natural a the of the other on of 15% and quantifies erosion areas approximately Most which water forest is model, to 2015. systems SEDEM due river in / al. sediments affected in application WaTEM et soil soil is 1997). distributed (Panagos of of which al., t/year the loss et transport of million with Renard the the 970 (RUSLE, 2018) 20% and version of al Km2, revised value path et its million total potential in (Borrelli Com- a 1.3 USLE result European and equation is latest universal tonnes/ha/year the EU-27 on The 10 of based the than Centre is in Estimation more Research value phenomenon Joint 2015d). with the the loss by by soil out affected by Notte, carried (La the area level being as the human European intended the mission, at is for estimates life benefit of to the quality According while the in used change information. is a ecological structure model ecosystem produces and biophysical that the cascade interactions 2017). service which the of ecosystem the flows through both the as to ”means” of differentiate intended product are scheme refers services, goods this the approach from particular, of adopted functions In extensions / the Recent regulation processes services, the a 2010). and ecosystem as al. on erosion et literature from (Haines-Young erodible, main protection less is offers the to condition functionality, Following good soil soil in the soil preserves A expose anthropic which water. and from surface land, service. cover acceleration and degraded vegetation rainfall an latitudes, not the undergo our remove thus can in to which this mainly nature erosion, process, urbanization, by of natural and agents offered a agriculture services the is mainly ecosystem erosion in activities, Maintenance. main of listed & the phenomenon Regulation of threats the of one Although eight services as the the the among within in classified erosion classified being, human therefore of is inclusion protection the Erosion (2006). to Strategy lead Soil Thematic phenomenon Commission’s the European of relevance The 2 Posted on Authorea 20 Apr 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158740013.30326525 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ic trpeet h eulbim iuto ntegvncniin fln s n olcharacteristics. soil and use land of soil, conditions by provided given control” the “erosion service in ecosystem situation the of ”equilibrium” measure the the itself represents area. in reaches it with not unit actually is basin since per loss that entire value soil sediment the of erosion of removed by outflow amount an the result The the is of USLE of result share the receptor The multiplying the the by represents bodies. reach assessed which water or is (SDR) the path lost Ratio the actually Delivery along soil Sediment transported redeposited of a be be share can can The ground, the sediments basin. land from these the removed turn, which, precipitation, sediment In of properties, water. share by the soil represents topography, calculated thus to loss equation practices. The related USLE conservation soil the characteristics territory and of of the vegetation portion revision single cover, on the Equation) use/land from depending Loss (potential) soil Soil calculated, of Universal loss is the characteristics, (Revised environments, soil topographical RUSLE specifically complex on the to basins, adapted data or future. individual USLE, specific the bodies to the of water in model availability Through reaching response this the sediments better applying with of a capacity of quantities for allow erosion the possibility sensitive could of its The extremely forecasts and model. outputs the rainfall empirical the on characterizing make this information RUSLE by no of given simplicity and are the data through and input passing parameters the sediments of to of number (Gianinetto volume limited rainfall of very input terms The sediment given and JRC in a hydrology response hydraulics, for from of basin section level basis which closing the the European on the providing , processes at equations, individual (USLE) available theory the Equation all transport also describe Loss would are model Soil ideal parameters 2015c). Universal An 2015b; whose the 2015a; and 2014; formula, consider erosion al., to popular et soil lead (Panagos most consider potential be the to the parameters as involved assesses of such number models, high change the simplified value. service with ecosystem economic use/cover phenomenon, the for of land of complexity examined of indicator The further state an as be steady the considered to the by be terms, between retention can biophysical comparison scenarios, water in different the 2012). of with through Commission, lack properties capacity (European soil the retention phenomena and general, the erosive In of and variation load. consequent floods The a solid in coverings, high increase plant an the with of to even (even the alteration leads water of degradation the soil capacity surface and soil infiltration network outflows of of the drainage in capacity of natural forms increase the protective reduction different of the the The entail modification on a etc.) conditions. dependent water, agriculture, cover intensive mainly use/land compaction, factors, sealing, land to many partial different refers on in & depends This cover Regulation 2.2.1.1). effects erosion environment”. vegetation water (code stabilising 2018): the event Potschin of the to extreme magnitude and of and use (Haines-Young The virtue flows human 5.1 by baseline V. soil of of of classification Regulation damage loss CICES (Biotic)/ potential the Maintenance the the in within mitigates reduction proposed assessment, “the that scheme services as ecosystem vegetation for defined 2017) the al., is of et service Notte control (La data project erosion MAES present the by we proposed scheme Here the to Italy. According “erosion in service (Munaf`o, 2018 2019). ecosystem 2018 to methods the for 2012 and in data change from Materials consumption the consumption land of soil latest assessment the of economic to increase the updated present the to from is resulting paper control” quantification the infras- economic of existing objective. and lower aim on basic Biophysical to The or this due disuse. brownfields) have loss in should quan- (i.e. soils anything services Economic areas agricultural if ecosystem of degraded interventions. settlements, of on process abandoned urban intervening current urban new than the and for soils of tructures soil reverse those fertile the transforming of help of should loss costs context continuous this the in determine tification to as such place, 3 talii et 2019). , Posted on Authorea 20 Apr 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158740013.30326525 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. hr n r h vrg otiuin epcieyo h adcvrfco n h rdeto the of component gradient downslope the The and factor area. cover contributing land upslope the the is of A respectively and contributions surface average upstream the the are to belonging S pixels and C Where 2016): al., et (Sharp by estimated (D are area components two upstream The the considered. of cell function a is which index: connectivity IC the from starting considering calculated classes, instead cover is 2006 Corine index to SDR adapted The and JRC cover from derived areas. 2006 factor, artificial Corine practice for support to zero a adapted is and ?? JRC and from * areas; derived artificial (non-dimensional), DEM for factor of zero resolution; crop-management basis considering m the a classes, 500 on is a model with ?? by JRC * calculated from directly derived (non-dimensional), resolution; -1), factor m mm) length-gradient 500 input; ha slope a in hr(MJ a with is ha JRC ton from ??? derived * (units: -1), erodibility hr) soil (ha is mm ?? MJ * (units: erosivity rainfall is ?? * 2016): al., et where (Sharp formula the by given is i ISPRA, pixel given by a produced in maps studies. annually cover JRC lost use/land from soil land derived of the were amount and parameters The other model elevation the of digital soil. values the bare the are to while model compared the use to land or current Input scenario capacity the cover retention land by each sediment tons/pixel, for weighted The in erosion description Equation) expressed water 1. Model avoided is Loss figure as erosion calculated Soil in Avoided is illustrated Universal cover 2018). soil and modelas (Revised by (2012 transportation provided RUSLE loss a formula soil in in revised reduction factor the SDR uses the study by this water in calculates the model adopted reaches The actually request. that on InVEST’s portion m the Also et 25 estimates (Borrelli at then JRC available and the also pixel, by but each formula m for bodies. 100 sediment transport of eroded a resolution of of amount a addition the with the of published used with phenomenon is, be updated 2018) the also recently al. to was can two sensitivity way figure and different other. between this European capacity the the lost in The of to holding calculated soil indicator compared the loss an in territory soil in as one increase of variation or of value the areas, the erosion absolute capacity: different represents The between this change) service. comparisons of the use for in indicator land variation an or the as therefore periods used time (different be scenarios can variation its However, nertdVlaino csse evcsadtradeoffs and Services Ecosystem of Valuation Integrated usle i = p n h o ahtwrstewtrbd (D body water the towards path flow the and up) IC D R up i = • = K  4 i CS • D D LS dn up √ i A  • C i • P i ut fmdl Sape l 2016) al. et (Sharp models of suite n fthe of dn) Posted on Authorea 20 Apr 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158740013.30326525 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. hr d where h nlsdmn od(nMg (in load sediment final The SDR the of value maximum The 2016): al., et (Sharp as calculated then is coefficient transport sediment the of value The by given is ffc ftespotpatcs( atr aao ta. 05)hv eouino 5m hs w data two These 250m. of resolution a have the 2015c) all and in al., 2015b) erodibility output al., et soil et an Panagos the Panagos obtain factor, (C-factor, to between (P Same factors managing resolution practices management it. thus support cover in value, to land the difference pixel aligned The of closest the erosion. effect and however the to soil which with model by Due 2014), proximity elevation affected al., by areas. areas digital et ”filled” urbanized Panagos the been densely (K-factor, has of factor in raster erodibility resolution defined soil resolution the with not the with 2015a) for is al., resampled procedure et same Panagos been and (R–actor, has erosivity resolution rainfall m, the raster 500 processes, in the (the of available up data studies, speed input Center and required Research simplify To Joint the the ISPRA, from from obtained available are also (http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/). formula) format model, RUSLE elevation the digital of the parameters of exception the the from With (https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/themes/slope- Elevati- data format Digital raster m) of in available (25 basis and high-resolution Union a the European using length-and-steepness-factor-ls-factor). whole on calculated natu- the the is for ISPRA from and (DEM) (LS-factor) scenarios. Model factor by changing 2012 changing on steepness resoluti- for cover produced from and m length reference year are for slope as each 10 maps The only used for with Those and detail available programme Italy (Munaf`o, 2019). with is Services of 2018 artificial, map, Monitoring map for to Copernicus-Land consumption cover if areas land land one semi-natural the complete or last and forest high-resolution 2012 and are in for ral/agricultural variation study period. available the reference the represent is the to to on in assumed inputs soil is of main scenario consumption The two the by the caused between by provision weighted values service soil, erosion (maximum) ecosystem avoided bare in to difference compared The use land current by factor. avoided SDR soil of the loss the represents which Mg (in hectare per the tons of in basin value retained bare the soil hy- this ground: the from a of bare sediment point value removal interest. on reference The the of cancelled between a scenario are difference as the coverings the of using on ground that service, based and and detention therefore uses the is all of service which conservation estimate in quantitative scenario a provides pothetical also model The stelnt rmtesm elacrigt h teetdwsoedrcint h ae body. water the to direction downslope steepest the to according cell same the from length the is i vie erosion Avoided · max ha -1 ne ssta .,wieIC while 0.8, at set is index · yr SDR -1 i ilb ie by: given be will ) = E i D = i R dn usle = i • + 1 = K i 5 X exp • SDR i i LS • C · SDR i d ha-1 IC i max S i • 0 i (1 − k i IC · − 0 i r1 sgvnb h formula: the by given is yr-1)
n r airto parameters. calibration are k and C i • P i ) ∗ SDR i Posted on Authorea 20 Apr 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158740013.30326525 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. h cnmcvlaino ol n t csse evcsi eaieynwadsilntwl developed well not over still and of new risk relatively a a is is there services point, ecosystem critical its and a soils thus factor. of is usle valuation have adopted other economic to to DEM of The seems compared with of transport application if and sediment the resolution factor, for phenomena slope perfecting The Results of erosive of conditions. slope- representation the local possibility to to reaches on the subject sensibility information also explore detailed largely high model to more territory, SEDEM pushes with / Italian model mediate, WaTEM retained) the the to the (or difficult of removed on variability sediments using conditions territorial the study canalization The of JRC of calculation conclusion. extent The determine total the same underestimation. that the affect artificial, therefore in further can to components to and natural these events leads from Neglect rain cover be during erosion. land rate must bank flow in and model peak changes the the of impact. dynamic in effects from total changes the to significant obtained the ignores referred value of is also estimate the type limitation and the scenarios, Additional distributed movement) of channeled the of limit (currents mass comparing effects lower erosion and when the the of erosion Therefore, as considers sources considered gullies rains. only other and the neglecting it (Sougnez streambank of while since studies flow, ditches, effects scope, laminar local or in with of streams limited flow results in is surface the but i.e. account different rainfall, into used take of specifying widely to by is C, equation result particular USLE This the in that improve and different known to P with is 2011). areas K, possible It al., other R, therefore formula. et in inputs is USLE performance the the It limited of on with climate. values States, dependence and United its condition for is developed morphological model equation the empirical an of is limitations main the Among are: inputs Other areas. artificial such the in of erodibility P-factor soil and the are: based of C-factor considered are absence of parameters data the values starting formula average consider the USLE to which use The on 0 2015c). land 2006, to al., to Cover average forced Land et the according were CORINE Panagos calculate values the surfaces to 2015b; non-dimensional of performed al., classes with were cover et but analyses land (Panagos and spatial format use values, raster land these the in extrapolate of To not classes. model cover land the and in entered be must • • • • • • • • • • adcnupinmp21 n 08wt 0mrslto Mnf,2019). (Munafo, resolution m ; 10 (ISPRA) with m 2018 20 and at 2012 2012 map map consumption national Land resolution high cover Land http://www.sinanet.isprambiente.it/it/sia-ispra/download- at available mais); (ISPRA, resolution m 10 http://www.sinanet.isprambiente.it/it/sia- with DEM at available (ISPRA), ispra/download-mais); map national boundary Watershed walls, stone from classes, dry and cover - Conditions) 2006 surveys ground Environmental Corine in Agricoltural to directly (Good adapted observable etc.). practices database and hedges, (anti-erosive GAEC JRC samplings the from LUCAS from derived the data factor, P: practice areas. Factor of artificial support etc.); for crops, (type a zero cover areas; areas is considering processing, non-agricultural 2006 agricultural no for Corine / ?? data for Cover processing to and data reduced Land adapted EUROSTAT as Corine and such and areas; adopted JRC Copernicus artificial practices from of agricultural for derived basis and zero the (non-dimensional), crop considering on factor model classes, crop-management by cover a calculated is directly (non-dimensional), ?? factor Italy); in length-gradient points slope minutes; DEM; Italy, 1,300 30 a of for (around resolution is surveys homogeneously; time average LUCAS distributed ??? an from stations with interval data of 2002-2011 factor: series the covered K a that from stations data 251 are resolution there temporal high factor: R 6 Posted on Authorea 20 Apr 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158740013.30326525 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. h td safis tep oass h cnmcvleo csse evcsls rdcdb land by produced loss services related ecosystem are control of erosion value to applied economic approach the this of assess limitations main to The attempt level. national first a at a land consumption ecosystem is in the increasing study of impact. small loss economic The a the significant even to a where with due areas, phenomenon cost erosive the sloped the Discussion the of of coasts, in sensibility loss high increase the the almost an indicates consumption areas, being determines land This lowland areas consumption where higher. in coastal areas much concentrated some mountain is in in consumption, Conversely, service and land limited. low of rather where rather is rate effects. in areas, erosion is highest consumption than to hilly land the density linked and of higher which service consideration a ecosystem piedmont in with proper areas of cases a the municipalities some of corre- In in urgency small erosion, increased the Italian to has demonstrating economic consumption In subject relevant areas, land in urbanized most control. results needed, large areas erosion consumption more land the is of in in control increasing loss erosion concentrated small to a are even due losses where economic impact slope, higher major the for the to m represented sponding expected, in are consumption is Values land it Italy. of As in density in conditions the loss different and area) between economic municipal variability maximum the high the (figure the respectively 2012-2018 between municipality, shows density each 3) consumption an land figure with and and loss service control 2 control erosion of erosion distribution of geographical The flow service annual M the (table1). 135 others of m3 of very the million decrease in be 200 a estimated over to to value at confirmed average associated (estimated are is soil which consumption of that effect. consumption losses Land shows significant the annual services most by ecosystem produces the produced of is Italy runoff flow year) surface in the / in consumption of increase analysis soil (Munafo, The The ha of high. 31.500 peninsula. impact of the Italy economic along in variability increased the consumption high land a study, the with for 2019) considered ecosystem (2012-2018) in period the change In of value economic the in resulting Results t/ha, 117,6 in and expressed 11,01 model in in InVEST 2014 service thus the year cost, of to the revaluation output of by the component value, social economic the above-mentioned problem. 95.53 including The the not and of costs, 8.94 underestimation market between an or loss replacement to soil to leading between of refer control studies tonne these erosion per (Panagos that cost t/ha/year the 2.46 economic for of the value erosion for average economic the an of data erosion report JRC-EC to service 235 connected ecosystem and values this economic 22 the concerning of studies variability Main its literature large extensive a an of to shows proxy refers that loss, avoided services. as 2018) or ecosystem control. replacing ISPRA, used regulating of to cost of are (Annex mainly value study, service review the economic in estimate ecosystem used value to given economic most economic The with the a inconsistent applied of even are estimate. demands, loss and first data value a replacing/restoring/avoiding low proxies economic as with price of helpful class real- market Costs be method from services, simplest could theory. far ecosystem the but is are soil limitations, this methods of with but Cost-based value both services economic used, land ecosystem Theoretically, are the soil 2018). methods estimate of Meulen, cost-based value to der or the order (Van also In articles factors, application. review other world published among recently reflect, of should number prices a by suggested as \ euro/ha. \ uoh/errfre o20 VndrMeulen der (Van 2003 to referred euro/ha/year \ uoya,floigol ae o euain hc slreyover largely is which regulation, flow water only following euro/year, 7 2 tal et tal et /ha. \ uoya aeaeo aiu ausin values maximum of (average euro/year 08.Toevle,i eae othe to related if values, Those 2018). . \ 05d,alw oetmt ninterval an estimate to allows d), 2015 . uot(03.I utb one out pointed be must It (2003). euro/t \ uot sapidto applied is euro/t, Posted on Authorea 20 Apr 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158740013.30326525 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 51adGiac nteApiaino h eie Structure Revised the of Application the on Guidance and V5.1 (2018) MB. Potschin R, Haines-Young erosion soil Press. potential estimate (2010) being to MP model Potschin RH, dynamic Chiarel- Haines-Young D., a Alps. Bocchiola, D-RUSLE: Italian G., (2019). the Ravazzani, in R. C., ps://doi.org/10.1080/22797254.2019.1669491 series Vezzoli M. time A.& Rulli, satellite F., Soncini with Frassya, D., F., D. Polinellia, li, M., Aiello, M., Gianinetto, waterproofing (2012). Commission a European towards step https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.009 A 291-298. carbon (2018). 161: and Research, P. transfer Environmental sediment Panagos, with E., erosion on-site Lugato, Coupling C., Europe: Alewell, in fluxes. degradation K., soil Meusburger, maltreatment-related of assessment with K., holistic children Oost, in Van function P., Neuropsychological Borrelli, (2002). D. M. Bellis, this disorder. De in stress & posttraumatic discussed , materials R. S. or Beers, matter subject the in interest References of conflict the no reflect have necessarily not manuscript. they do that and declare author(s) the Authors of ISPRA. those of are policies product or information than views this greater in far expressed valuation. be views market could The therefore, without consumption, externalities, land of of reported. source not 2012) values a goods environmental Commission, the be relevant public (European can are the costs” itself services of ”hidden the use ecosystem The share the manage Many small and processes. to a terms decision-making administrations Only market in in decision-making. the for well-being valuable use accounted human to land usually for indications is services supporting useful effects ecosystem helpful of providing be consumption importance Land can 2018), the the and (Sharp (ISPRA, to demonstrates related valuation high soil loss complex Economic economic quite bare a phenomenon. of level is describe of the to Italy that area able indicates in an analysis index flow to an service pixels, ecosystem as compared The these but they loss for quantitatively if interpreted high soil be be pixels reduced not can environment forest phenomenon. of urban should factor) the than output service that (second suggests the index SDR this a factor): Therefore, the higher first providing (the terms, a loss already values soil other have avoided index is In of situations, may service stream. lower some a pixels the for In compensating to urban pixel. connected given example, highly the for through are counter-intuitive: flowing account sediment not be does upstream it may from since the retention, retention (Sougnez underestimates altering studies the model by InVEST for local model by computed from the index erosion. in findings retention rill implemented sediment reflect and The equation to sheet loss inputs on soil P focusing the when C, modify United even K, may the areas gully R, users in other knowledge, developed including in equation local performance considered, empirical on biophysical limited an not Based shown of as has are addition, limitations USLE In sediment the specific erosion. of States, mass to sources and erosion, and Other streambank literature erosion, processes. (Renard the erosion equation in rill/inter-rill USLE published representing The values considered. economic model in variability the to n aali ..adC rdC .J es)EoytmEooy e ytei.CmrdeUniversity Cambridge synthesis. new a Ecology: Ecosystem (eds.) J. L. C. Frid C. and D.G. Raffaelli, In: W 21)101. (2012) SWD . h mrcnJunlo scity 159 Psychiatry, of Journal American The udlnso odpatc o iiig iiaigadcmestn o soil for compensating and mitigating limiting, for practice good on Guidelines omnItrainlCasfiaino csse evcs(CICES) Services Ecosystem of Classification International Common h ik ewe idvriy csse evcsadhmnwell- human and services ecosystem biodiversity, between links The uoenJunlo eoeSensing Remote of Journal European tal et 8 97 swdl sdbti iie nsoe only scope, in limited is but used widely is 1997) . vial rmwww.cices.eu from Available . tal et 2011). . 8–8.doi: 483–486. , oue5,21.htt- 2019. 52, Volume , 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.3.483 tal. et 2016). Posted on Authorea 20 Apr 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158740013.30326525 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. abnsqetain-1.1 3316-627.397 -373.106 loss[ service -118.815 of value Minimum sequestration Carbon consumption soil Services the Ecosystem to processing due ISPRA services Source: ecosystem Italy. maintenance in and 2018 regulating and of 2012 flow between the in Variation 1: Table 2018. L. Maring tems. S, vegetated sparsely Meulen steep, der Rogers for Van measured AL, rates Vogl, erosion Low P Spain. (2011). southeast Fund. Bernhardt Hamel, V. in Vanacker, catchments Wildlife M, B., L World Wesemael Marsik van and Mandle, Conservancy, N., J, M Nature Sougnez Toft Lacayo The (2016). M, Minnesota, A, J. Papenfus Arkema of Perelman Douglass University D, G, University, D, N, Cameron Guannel Stanford Denu J, Chaumont CK, Forrest W, K, Wolny Kim J, Bierbower D, Foster Glowinski L, G, Ennaanay J, R, Verutes E, Aukema C, Griffin Nelson G, R, Kennedy J, Mendoza Chaplin-Kramer D, E, SA, Pennington Lonsdorf Wood K, K, AD, Vigerstol Guerry N, T, Olwero Ricketts (RUSLE) S, Equation HT, Loss Tallis Soil R, (1997). Universal Sharp Revised 703. coordinators the No. A D.C., with Handbook planning Yoder Europe: Agricultural conservation D.K., USDA to in . guide McCool erodibility A G.A., Water: Weesies Soil by Erosion G.R., (2014). Foster C. K.G., Renard Alewell P., Borrelli LUCAS. C., ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.02.010 on Ballabio based dataset K., high-resolution Meusburger P., Panagos Europe. in The erosion (2015)d. C., water Alewell by L, Montanarella loss 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.01 K, soil Meusburger E, the of Lugato assessment C, Estimating new Ballabio J, (2015)c. Poesen P, L. Borrelli P, scale. Montanarella Panagos E., European Lugato at C., factor Alewell ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.021. cover-management C, erosion Meusburger P.., soil Borrelli Scale. European P., at Panagos water by ef- erosion the soil Modelling of Policy (2015)b. reduction Alewell C., the & Alewell on Science S., J., (P-factor) Poesen practices E.H., Begueria support Zanden of S., der A., van fect K., Michaelides Dumitrescu Meusburger P., M.P., Borrelli A., P., Tadic Panagos Rymszewicz S., Rousseva M., Europe. Lakatos A., in Klik erosivity J., 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.008. Rainfall K., Aalto (2015)a. Meusburger P., C., P., Olsen Borrelli M., Agr. C., Hrabalikova Soc. Ballabio Am. 45, P., No. Panagos (1982). Publication W. Special ASA L. Tolerance, Kimberlin Loss and Soil accounts. K. services K. ecosystem Young tolerance of (2017). E., implementation doi:10.2760/214137. D. J. Luxembourg. the McCormack, Maes Union, for European G, proposals the Initial Zulian of services. Office C, Publications their Polce and S, ecosystems Vallecillo for A, Notte La (2015). ISPRA (2018). ISPRA 08/19. SNPA (2019). ed. M. Munafo, vial thttp://www.worldsoilday2017.eu/pdfs/Soils4EU at Available nShitB . lmrsR . anrn .V n aedc .I Es eemnnsof Determinants (Eds) I. R. Papendick and V. J. Mannering A., R. Allmaras L., B. Schmidt In . olcnupin ertra yaisadeoytmsrie 08edition 2018 - services ecosystem and dynamics territorial consumption, Soil olcnupini tl.Rpr 1/05. 218/2015 Report Italy. in consumption Soil 1 33.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.03.012 23-34. 51: , olcnupin ertra yaisadeoytmsrie 09edition 2019 - services ecosystem and dynamics territorial consumption, Soil CATENA, apn n seseto cssesadterSrie olecosys- Soil Services their and Ecosystems of Assessment and Mapping oue8,Ise –,Pgs1-11. Pages 1–2, Issues 84, Volume cec fTtlEnvironment Total of Science cec fTtlEnvironment Total of Science nET330Ue’ Guide User’s 3.3.0 InVEST 9 niomna cec Policy & Science Environmental adUePlc journal Policy Use Land mlmniga Usse faccounting of system EU an Implementing urn rtrafrdtriigsi loss soil determining for criteria Current D1.2 7–8 21)p.1920 htt- 189–200. pp. (2014) 479–480 , ecosystemservices \ 1 21a,p.8184 DOI: 801-814. pp. (2015a), 511 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2010.08.010 uoya]Aeaevleo evc loss[ service of value Average euro/year] h aua aia Project, Capital Natural The . 8C:3-0 htt- 38-50. 48(C): , 4 3-4.DOI: 438-447. 54: . . eot288/2018. Report MAES.pdf rdcigSoil Predicting Environmental . Report \ uoya]Mxmmvleo evc loss[ service of value Maximum euro/year] . \ euro/year] Posted on Authorea 20 Apr 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158740013.30326525 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ae uicto 2680-84282-76.518.805 -53.942.709 -2.244.424.248 -7.013.406 -29.110.714 -4.640.568 -14.787.820 -109.097.041 -38.402.822 -11.435.429 -28.095.161 -2.085.208.798 -6.133.071 -29.110.714 -109.097.041 -14.787.820 -3.080.862 -7.147.143 -286.840 -2.247.613 -1.925.993.347 -5.252.736 -29.110.714 -109.097.041 -14.787.820 Total -1.521.157 purification Water loss[ regulation service flow Water of value Minimum availability Water erosion of ozone Control -2.858.857 and particulate of Removal climate/temperature local of Regulation pollination Crop production Timber production Crop quality Habitat Services Ecosystem 2126046-.5.4.6 -2.800.252.105 -248.653.968 -2.456.441.265 -135.004.727 -2.112.630.426 -21.355.485 10 \ uoya]Aeaevleo evc loss[ service of value Average euro/year] \ uoya]Mxmmvleo evc loss[ service of value Maximum euro/year] \ euro/year] Posted on Authorea 20 Apr 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158740013.30326525 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 11 Posted on Authorea 20 Apr 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158740013.30326525 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 12