European soils are under increasing pressure, making it difficult to maintain the provision of soil ecosystem services (SESs). A better understanding of soil processes is needed to counteract soil threats (STs) and to promote sustainable soil management. The EJP SOIL programme of the EU provides a framework for the necessary research. However, different definitions of soil‐related terms potentially lead to varied understandings of concepts. Furthermore, there are numerous indicators available to quantify STs or SESs. As unclear communication is a key barrier that hinders the implementation of research results into practice, this study aimed to answer the question about whether the terminology of large‐scale initiatives is adequately understood within the soil‐science community and non‐research stakeholders. An online questionnaire was used to provide definitions for 33 soil‐related terms in both scientific and plain language, as well as indicators for seven SESs and 11 STs. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with the definitions and indicators on a seven‐grade Likert scale. The level of agreement was calculated as the percentage of ratings above 4, the neutral position. The survey was available from June to September 2023 and was distributed by a snowball approach. More than 260 stakeholders assessed the survey; 70% of respondents were researchers, and 15% were practitioners. Mean agreement levels for the definitions and indicators were generally high, at 85% and 78% respectively. However, it was apparent that the lowest agreement was found for terms that are relatively new, such as Ecosystem Services and Bundle , or unfamiliar for certain subgroups, such as ecological terms for stakeholders working at the farm scale. Due to their distinct majority, the results of this study primarily reflect the opinions of scientists. Thus, broad conclusions can only be drawn by comparing scientists with non‐scientists. In this regard, the agreement was surprisingly high across all types of questions. The combined outcomes indicate that there is still a need to facilitate communication between stakeholders and to improve knowledge distribution strategies. Nevertheless, this study can support and be used by future projects and programmes, especially regarding the harmonization of terminology and methods.

The aim of this study was to use a pedodiversity index (PI) to assess changes in the spatial structure of soil cover in Inowrocław, Poland during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. An original cartographic approach based on landscape metrics was implemented using GIS techniques and statistical calculations. Based on maps of urban soil complexes and pedodiversity, it was revealed that land and soil cover changes in two studied periods (1934–1978 and 1978–2016) significantly affected pedodiversity in the city. In general, the spatio-temporal increase of the pedodiversity index was observed. The percentage of highest values of the PI ranged from 15.9% in 1934, 17.3% in 1978 to 20.9% in 2016. We revealed that pedodiversity index (PI) values are highly spatially and temporally variable and are associated with urban development and changes in the city’s internal structure. The applied approach allowed for the identification of both spatial patterns of changes in soil cover that closely reflect the successive stages of the city's development, and problem areas that require revitalization and the implementation of the principles of sustainable development. Therefore, the proposed method can be recommended for landscape monitoring and in determining ecosystem services in urban and landscape planning, and environmental management.

The scientific concepts of soil threats (STs) and soil‐related ecosystem services (SESs) are gaining importance and are fueling the debate on natural resources management and decision‐making within the EU. The literature reports numerous assessments of individual STs and SESs at the European scale. However, a comprehensive overview of the patterns emerging from the relationships between STs and SESs is still lacking, which restricts the ability to limit soil degradation and its impact on SESs. In this article, we provide an in‐depth analysis of existing European maps for three STs (soil organic carbon loss, erosion, and compaction) and four SESs (climate regulation and carbon sequestration, hydrological control, biomass production, and erosion control) and the feasibility of combining them to study their relationships. At the EU‐level, 37 maps for these STs and 17 for these SESs were encountered. With the notable exception of erosion, these maps differ considerably in their conceptualization of STs and SESs, and in the indicators, methods, and databases used to assess them. In the current situation, the combination of individual maps of STs and SESs to study their relationships is rarely possible. Besides these limitations, we identify possible combinations and provide recommendations aimed at improving the compatibility between different STs/SESs maps. We conclude that there is a need for a more robust framework for conceptualizing STs/SESs and for systematically and precisely specifying the chosen indicators.