in Ecology

Digging into the costs of urban soil rehabilitation

149 Views


Abstract

Urbanization leads to soil compaction, pollution and sealing, degrading the ecological functions of soil and ecosystem services essential for urban resilience, such as flood mitigation and climate regulation. Ecological rehabilitation of urban soils is thus critical for sustainable and climate-adapted cities. However, the economic dimensions of urban soil rehabilitation, particularly its costs, remain unexplored. Here we estimate that, in France, median urban soil rehabilitation costs range from €50 m−2 to €310 m−2 for compacted, sealed or built-up soils, escalating to over €800 m−2 for polluted soils. Urban soil rehabilitation involves a sequence of up to ten steps, combining several techniques, with substantial cost variation. Preliminary analyses—pre-intervention diagnostics to guide technical choices—are the least expensive step, while building deconstruction and pollution remediation are the most costly. These cost estimates will facilitate the prioritization of rehabilitation areas and the development of economic incentives for ecological rehabilitation in cities. These findings also highlight the need for healthy soil preservation, alongside rehabilitation efforts.

Access through your institution

Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Costs of techniques (in € m−2)—distribution.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 2: Drivers of urban soil rehabilitation cost.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 3: Cost of typical urban soil rehabilitation pathways (in € m−2).
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Similar content being viewed by others

Urbanization accelerates soil degradation in peri-urban compared to rural farms

Article
Open access
26 December 2025

Urbanization signatures on climate and soils uncovered by crowd-sensed plants

Article
Open access
15 January 2026

Constructing (multi)functional soil using urban organic and sediment wastes

Article
Open access
13 October 2025

Data availability

The datasets generated by the survey research and analyzed in the current study are available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20303439 (ref. 55).

References

  1. Díaz, S. et al. (eds) The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).

  2. Bocquet, M. Analyse de la Consommation d’Espaces (Cerema, 2023); https://artificialisation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/sites/artificialisation/files/inline-files/rapport_V4_2009-2022.pdf

  3. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Soil Monitoring and Resilience (Soil Monitoring Law) (European Commission, 2023).

  4. Pavao-Zuckerman, M. A. The nature of urban soils and their role in ecological restoration in cities. Restor. Ecol. 16, 642–649 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  5. Byrne, L. B. in Soils and Landscape Restoration (eds Stanturf, J. A. & Callaham, M. A.) 373–410 (Academic Press, 2021).

  6. Tobias, S. et al. Soil sealing and unsealing: state of the art and examples. Land Degrad. Dev. 29, 2015–2024 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  7. O’Riordan, R., Davies, J., Stevens, C. & Quinton, J. N. The effects of sealing on urban soil carbon and nutrients. SOIL 7, 661–675 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dominati, E., Patterson, M. & Mackay, A. A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1858–1868 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  9. Adhikari, K. & Hartemink, A. E. Linking soils to ecosystem services—a global review. Geoderma 262, 101–111 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  10. Greiner, L., Keller, A., Grêt-Regamey, A. & Papritz, A. Soil function assessment: review of methods for quantifying the contributions of soils to ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 69, 224–237 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  11. Montanarella, L., Scholes, R. & Brainich, A. (eds) The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration (IPBES, 2018).

  12. Keesstra, S. et al. The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 610–611, 997–1009 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lal, R. Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability 7, 5875–5895 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (UNEP, 2022); https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf

  15. Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on Nature Restoration and Amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869 (Text With EEA Relevance) (European Parliament, 2024).

  16. Loi n∘ 2021–1104 du 22 Août 2021 Portant Lutte Contre le Dérèglement Climatique et Renforcement de la Résilience Face à ses Effets (French Parliament, 2021).

  17. Heneghan, L. et al. Integrating soil ecological knowledge into restoration management. Restor. Ecol. 16, 608–617 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  18. Harris, J. Soil microbial communities and restoration ecology: facilitators or followers?. Science 325, 573–574 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kardol, P. & Wardle, D. A. How understanding aboveground–belowground linkages can assist restoration ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 670–679 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  20. Farrell, H. L., Léger, A., Breed, M. F. & Gornish, E. S. Restoration, soil organisms, and soil processes: emerging approaches. Restor. Ecol. 28, S307–S310 (2020).

  21. Klaus, V. H. & Kiehl, K. A conceptual framework for urban ecological restoration and rehabilitation. Basic Appl. Ecol. 52, 82–94 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  22. The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration (SER, 2004); https://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/littonc/PDFs/682_SERPrimer.pdf

  23. Clewell, A. F. & Aronson, J. Ecological Restoration (Springer, 2013).

  24. De Groot, R. S. et al. Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conserv. Biol. 27, 1286–1293 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bayraktarov, E. et al. The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecol. Appl. 26, 1055–1074 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  26. Robbins, A. S. T. & Daniels, J. M. Restoration and economics: a union waiting to happen? Restor. Ecol. 20, 10–17 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  27. Carrera, P. & Robertiello, A. in Integrated Soil and Sediment Research: A Basis for Proper Protection (eds Eijsackers, H. J. P. & Hamers, T.) 733–753 (Springer, 1993).

  28. Fosse, J., Belaunde, J., Dégremont, M. & Grémillet, A. Objectif << Zéro Artificialisation Nette >>: Quels Leviers Pour Protéger les Sols? (France Stratégi, 2019).

  29. Mirzabaev, A. & Wuepper, D. Economics of ecosystem restoration. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 15, 329–350 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  30. Iftekhar, M. S., Polyakov, M., Ansell, D., Gibson, F. & Kay, G. M. How economics can further the success of ecological restoration. Conserv. Biol. 31, 261–268 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  31. Claron, C., Mikou, M., Levrel, H. & Tardieu, L. Mapping urban ecosystem services to design cost-effective purchase of development rights programs: the case of the Greater Paris metropolis. Land Use Policy 122, 106349 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  32. Coupaye, L. in The Palgrave Handbook of the Anthropology of Technology (eds Bruun, M. J. et al.) 37–60 (Springer Nature, 2022).

  33. Morel, J. L., Chenu, C. & Lorenz, K. Ecosystem services provided by soils of urban, industrial, traffic, mining, and military areas (SUITMAs). J. Soils Sediments 15, 1659–1666 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  34. Brunet, L. Un transfert de sol incertain: les surprises de la restauration et de la compensation écologique. Rev. Anthropol. Connaiss. 14, 1760–5393 (2020).

  35. Chateau, L., Milton, Y., Petit S., Pauget, B. & Challaye, C. La Reconversion des Friches Polluées au Service du Renouvellement Urbain: Enseignements Technico-Économiques – Bilan des opérations aidées dans le cadre du dispositif ADEME d’aide aux travaux de dépollution pour la reconversion des friches polluées (période 2010-2016) (ADEME, MODAAL Conseil & TESORA, 2018).

  36. Meulemans, G. Urban pedogeneses: the making of city soils from hard surfacing to the urban soil sciences. Environ. Hum. 12, 250–266 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Deboeuf de Los Ríos, G., Barra, M., Grandin, G. & Bauquet, N. Renaturer les Villes: Méthode, Exemples et Préconisations (l’Institut Paris région, 2022).

  38. Gadet, D. Le Prix des Terrains et du Bâti Pour les Maisons Individuelles en 2022 (Ministère de la transition écologique et de la cohésion des territoires, 2023); https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/media/6902/download?inline

  39. Garrod, G. & Willis, K. G. Economic Valuation of the Environment: Methods and Case Studies (Edward Elgar, 1999).

  40. Levrel, H. et al. The maintenance costs of marine natural capital: a case study from the initial assessment of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in France. Mar. Policy 49, 37–47 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  41. Feger, C., Levrel, H. & Rambaud, A. Trois méthodes comptables complémentaires pour mettre les problèmes écologiques au cœur de la chose publique. Rev. Fr. Admin. Pub. 183, 815–829 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kervinio, Y., Surun, C., Comte, A. & Levrel, H. Defining ecological liabilities and structuring ecosystem accounts to support the transition to sustainable societies. One Ecosyst. 8, e98100 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gonon, M., Surun, C. & Levrel, H. Limiter l’artificialisation des sols pour éviter une dette écologique se chiffrant en dizaines de milliards d’euros. The Conversation https://theconversation.com/limiter-lartificialisation-des-sols-pour-eviter-une-dette-ecologique-se-chiffrant-en-dizaines-de-milliards-deuros-166073 (2021).

  44. The State of Soil in Europe (European Union, 2012).

  45. Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review (HM Treasury, 2021); https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/final-report-the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-review

  46. Maron, M. et al. Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biol. Conserv. 155, 141–148 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  47. Castaing, J., Monod, K. & Norève, V. Renaturer les Sols, des Solutions pour les Territoire (CDC Biodiversité and Office Français de la Biodiversité, 2022).

  48. Neaud, C. Retours d’Expérience et Outils Mobilisables pour la Renaturation des Espaces (Cerema, 2021); https://doc.cerema.fr/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/592841/retours-d-experience-et-outils-mobilisables-pour-la-renaturation-des-espaces-tome-3?_lg=fr-FR

  49. Limasset, E. et al. Projet SOILval—Quelle Prise en Compte de la Valeur des Sols dans la Planification et l’Aménagement du Territoire en France et en Wallonie? (SOILver, 2021); https://www.soilver.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/soilval-3-analyse-et-recommandations-wp4.pdf

  50. Taugourdeau, O., Hellal, J., Montfort, D., Limasset, E. & Chauvin, C. Enjeux de la Reconversion d’une Friche et Comment Évaluer la Réhabilitation Écologique d’un Sol Dégradé (ADEME, 2020).

  51. Poudevigne, M., Billon, V., Charrier, G. & Pojer, K. Vers la Ville Perméable. Comment Désimperméabiliser les Sols? (Agence de l’eau Rhône Méditerranée Corse, 2017); https://www.rhone-mediterranee.eaufrance.fr/sites/sierm/files/content/migrate_documents/201703-PUB-GuideVersLaVillePermeable-vFinale_HD_Web.pdf

  52. Verdolini, E., Anadón, L. D., Baker, E., Bosetti, V. & Aleluia Reis, L. Future prospects for energy technologies: insights from expert elicitations. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 12, 133–153 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  53. Phillips-Mao, L., Refsland, J. M. & Galatowitsch, S. M. Cost-estimation for landscape-scale restoration planning in the upper Midwest, US. Ecol. Restor. 33, 135–146 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  54. Procédé de Construction de Sols à Partir de Matériaux Innovants en Substitution à la Terre Végétale et aux Granulats de Carrière (ADEME, 2015).

  55. Salin, M., Claron, C., Nguyen–Rabot, E., Mondolfo, N. & Levrel, H. A dataset of cost estimates for urban soil rehabilitation in France. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20303439 (2026).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We warmly thank all the experts and practitioners who dedicated time to this project. We are also grateful to the participants of the Journée d’étude de la Chaire de la Transition foncière (Champs-sur-Marne, March 2024) for their questions and feedback and to C. Peñasco for her valuable advice. This paper reflects the opinions of the authors and does not necessarily express the views of the Banque de France.

Funding

E.N.–R. received funding from the Chaire Comptabilité Écologique to carry out this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UMR Cired, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Cirad, CNRS, EHESS, ENPC, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Nogent-sur-Marne, France

    Mathilde Salin, Charles Claron, Elodie Nguyen–Rabot, Nicolas Mondolfo & Harold Levrel

  2. Banque de France, Paris, France

    Mathilde Salin

  3. LATTS, École des Ponts, Université Gustave Eiffel, CNRS, Marne-la-Vallée, France

    Charles Claron

  4. Centre d’Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation (CESCO, UMR 7204), Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

    Harold Levrel

Authors

  1. Mathilde Salin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charles Claron
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elodie Nguyen–Rabot
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicolas Mondolfo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Harold Levrel
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.S. and C.C. drafted the initial outline of the Article. M.S. wrote the core initial content, which was enriched by comments and feedback from C.C., H.L., E.N.–R. and N.M. Interviews and data collection were conducted by M.S., C.C., E.N.–R. and N.M. Data treatment and processing were carried out by M.S., C.C. and H.L.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Mathilde Salin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Cities thanks Pilar Andrés, Mitchell A. Pavao-Zuckerman, Daowei Zhang and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Costs of techniques (in €/m2) – By type of costs.

This figure presents the costs estimates in €/m2 that were collected for each step. Color indicates the different types of costs given by experts, which have heterogeneous statistical status (medians, minima, maxima, observations, etc.). *Here, excavation costs also include earthworks, transportation and storage. **Management and monitoring costs are presented for one year.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Steps involved in each soil rehabilitation pathway.

This figure presents the urban soil rehabilitation pathways we developed, along with the specific steps included in each pathway. The name of each pathway has the following structure: InitialState_FinalState_EcologicalEngineering, where Initial state can be built-up (B), sealed with an impervious surface (S), compacted (C), or polluted (P); Final State can be porous paving (PP) or vegetation (V); Ecological engineering can be low (l), moderate (m) or high (h).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Initial states in typical urban soil rehabilitation pathways.

(a) Built (B) (b) Sealed (S) (c) Compacted (C) (d) Polluted (P). Source: Authors.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Final states in typical urban soil rehabilitation pathways.

(a) Vegetation (V) (b) Porous paving (PP). Source: Authors.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Ecological engineering involved in typical urban soil rehabilitation pathways.

(a) Low (l) (b) Moderate (m) (c) High (h). Source: Authors.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information (download PDF )

Supplementary Sections 1–6, Figs. 1–26 and Tables 1–14.

Reporting Summary (download PDF )

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Salin, M., Claron, C., Nguyen–Rabot, E. et al. Digging into the costs of urban soil rehabilitation.
Nat Cities (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-026-00452-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-026-00452-w

Source: Ecology - nature.com

Seasonal utilization distributions, site fidelity, and habitat use of the black-tailed gull (Larus crassirostris) in the Yellow Sea

Global and regional soil salinization drives bacterial diversity loss and biogeochemical imbalance