Many farm-management practices focus on maximizing production, while others better reconcile production with the regulation of ecological processes and sociocultural identity through the provisioning of ecosystem services (ESs). Though many studies have evaluated the performance of management practices against ES supply, these studies often focused on only a few practices simultaneously. Here, we incorporate 23 distinct management practices in a rapid evidence assessment to draw more comprehensive conclusions on their supply potential across 14 ESs in European agriculture. The results are visualized using performance indicators that quantify the ES-supply potential of a given management practice. In total, 172 indicators are calculated, among which cover crops are found to have the strongest positive impact on pollination-supply potential, while extensive livestock management is found to have the strongest negative impact for the supply potential for habitat creation/protection. The indicators also provide insight into the state of the peer-reviewed literature. At both the farm and territorial levels, the literature noticeably fails to evaluate cultural services. Further, disparities between the number of indicators composed at the farm and territorial levels indicate a systematic bias in the literature toward the assessment of smaller spatial levels.

Soil health is foundational to ecological sustainability, economic productivity, and societal wellbeing. However, fragmented perspectives on what constitutes “healthy soil” hinder coherent policies and business models. This article addresses that gap by offering a value-based framework to guide soil-health initiatives. Building on the Total Economic Value framework, six complementary perspectives are identified: (1) productivist, (2) ecosystem services, (3) resilience, (4) non-use value, (5) intrinsic value, and (6) social innovation. These represent different motivations and beneficiaries – from private returns through public goods, to moral duties and collective empowerment. Each perspective implies specific opportunities and challenges for policy design. For instance, direct subsidies may be justified in cases where economic returns are delayed or insufficient, while ecosystem service payments require credible measurement and market mechanisms. Resilience investments often suffer from coordination failures, and intrinsic or social values lack clear economic incentives, requiring legal, educational, or institutional support instead. The article argues that no single policy instrument can serve all these perspectives effectively; rather, a differentiated, multi-perspective strategy is needed to align incentives, avoid over-subsidization, and ensure equitable access and accountability. This framework provides a foundation for designing inclusive and adaptive policies that foster sustainable soil stewardship across diverse stakeholders.

Global agriculture faces increasing challenges from reliance on mineral fertilizers, including price fluctuations, resource depletion, and environmental pressures. Circular bio-based fertilizers produced from organic residues offer a potential alternative by recycling nutrients and improving soil health. However, little is known about how farmers perceive these products in tropical smallholder settings, and whether they are seen as complements to or substitutes for mineral fertilizers. This study explores these questions through a choice experiment with 264 farmers in Valle del Cauca, Colombia, including an information treatment outlining benefits and drawbacks of both fertilizer types. Farmers valued high nutrient and organic matter content and fast nutrient release, while disliking high prices and long travel distances to obtain fertilizers. Information increased appreciation for organic matter and slow-release products. Additional analysis showed that nutrient content, price, and prior mineral fertilizer use influenced whether bio-based fertilizers were preferred as substitutes or complements.