Report on final version of tools for analysis of the soil health business models

2 NOVASOIL INNOVATIVE BUSINESS MODELS FOR SOIL HEALTH Grant agreement ID: 101091268 Report on final version of tools for analysis of the soil health business models Deliverable D 3.8 Project NOVASOIL Project title INNOVATIVE BUSINESS MODELS FOR SOIL HEALTH Work Package 3 Testing and development of a toolbox for incentives Deliverable 3.8 Period covered 01/11/2022-30/06/2025 Publication date 31/07/2025 Dissemination level PU Organisation name of lead beneficiary for this report New Bulgarian University Authors Dimitre Nikolov, Ekatherina Tzvetanova, Ivan Boevsky, Martin Banov, Krasimir Kostenarov, Vania Bankova. Contributors EVENOR Ref. Ares(2025)8236436 - 30/09/2025 3 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES This document has been reviewed by the NOVASOIL consortium according to the national reports and comments received. TABLE REVISION HISTORY DELIVERABLE Row Version Date Reviewers Description 1 V1.0 25/06/2025 NBU Draft version circulated by email 2 V2.0 30/06/2025 EVENOR Corrections and improvements required 3 V3.0 23/07/2025 NBU Revised version according to the received recommendations 4 V4.0 28/07/2025 NBU Additional revision according to the received recommendations 5 V5.0 29/07/2025 EVENOR Final remarks 4 Project Consortium Nº Participant organisation name Country 1 EVENOR TECH SLU ES 2 LEIBNIZ-ZENTRUM FUER AGRARLANDSCHAFTSFORSCHUNG GE 3 ZEMNIEKU SAEIMA LV 4 NEW BULGARIAN UNIVERSITY BU 5 CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE CNRS FR 6 KOBENHAVNS UNIVERSITET DK 7 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET MUENCHEN GE 8 ASSEMBLEE DES REGIONS EUROPEENNES FRUITIERES LEGUMIERES ET HORTICOLES FR 9 ISTITUTO DELTA ECOLOGIA APPLICATA SRL IT 10 UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA IT 11 WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY NL 12 CENTRE OF ESTONIAN RURAL RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGEEESTI EE 13 UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRID ES 14 UNIVERSITA DI PISA IT 15 ASOCIACION AGRARIA JOVENES AGRICULTORES DE SEVILLA ES 16 UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS GB 5 Table of contents List of figures ............................................................ 6 List of tables ............................................................. 6 List of abbreviations ...................................................... 7 Summary .................................................................... 8 1 Introduction ........................................................... 9 1.1 Context of WP 3 objectives ......................................... 9 1.2 Connection with the other WPs ...................................... 9 1.3 Purpose and scope of the document .................................. 9 1.4 Process of development ............................................ 11 2 Conceptual framework .................................................. 15 2.1 DTs framework and connection between the tools ...................... 15 2.2 Improvement of tool 2 - Digital tools for soil health business models18 2.3 Description of the NOVASOIL DTs ..................................... 19 2.3.1 DT 1 Case study current existing incentive analysis ............. 19 2.3.2 DT 2 New incentive analysis ..................................... 23 2.2.3 DT 3 Business model assessment of incentives implementation ..... 26 3. Upgraded design and features of the DTs ............................... 27 3.1 Home page ........................................................... 27 3.2 DT 1 Case study current existing incentive analysis ................. 28 3.3 DT 2 New incentive analysis ......................................... 29 3.4 DT 3 Business model assessment of incentives implementation ......... 31 3.5 Other tools ......................................................... 31 4. Conclusions .......................................................... 32 5. Policy and Implementation Potential ................................... 32 Resources ................................................................. 34 Acknowledgment ............................................................ 35 6 List of figures Figure 1. NOVASOIL digital toolbox ........................................ 10 Figure 2 The testing and validation activities related to tool 2 .......... 11 Figure 3. Connection between the tools on NOVASOIL DTs .................... 15 Figure 4 Incentives mapping graph ......................................... 20 Figure 5 Quadrants distribution of the mapping incentives ................. 21 Figure 6 Frame of the AHP model ........................................... 25 Figure 7 HOVASOIL DTs new architecture .................................... 27 Figure 8. NOVASOIL DTs home page .......................................... 28 Figure 9 Incentives mapping output ........................................ 29 Figure 10 Incentive analysis gap tool ..................................... 29 Figure 11 DT 2 SWOT analysis .............................................. 30 Figure 12 DT 2 Cross-rating matrix ........................................ 30 Figure 13 DT 2 AHP analysis ............................................... 30 Figure 14 DT 2 V-AHP calculator ........................................... 31 Figure 15 Other NOVASOIL tools ............................................ 31 List of tables Table 1 DST 2 evaluation .................................................. 11 Table 2 Case study data collection ........................................ 12 Table 3 Input-output process evaluation ................................... 16 Table 4 Identified issues in tool 2 ....................................... 18 Table 5 Improvements related to database, visualisation, and general experience ................................................................ 18 Table 6 Characterisation of the quadrants ................................. 21 Table 7 Typology of incentives and their relation to the BMC blocks ....... 22 Table 8 Cross-rating of the factors ....................................... 24 Table 9 AHP output ........................................................ 25 Table 10 Deriving the weights for the scenarios ........................... 26 Table 11 Weights for the incentive from V-AHP considering the financial expenditure for applying the incentive .................................... 26 7 List of abbreviations WP Working package EU European Union DT Digital tool AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process SWOT Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities DHK Digital knowledge hub CoP Community of Practice 8 Summary This deliverable presents the final version of the Digital Tools for Soil Health Business Models (DTs) developed under Task 3.3 of the NOVASOIL project, within Work Package 3 “Testing and development of a toolbox for incentives.” The DTs provide a unique, integrated framework that enables farmers, advisors, policymakers, and researchers to: 1. Map and diagnose existing incentives and identify gaps in their effectiveness for soil health. 2. Explore new combinations of incentives—public, voluntary, and marketdriven—that strengthen both soil stewardship and the resilience of farming business models. 3. Evaluate trade-offs and prioritise incentives using a robust multicriteria approach (SWOT, Analytic Hierarchy Process – AHP, and ValueAHP), incorporating economic, environmental, and organisational dimensions. What differentiates these tools is the explicit connection between soil health indicators, business model dynamics, and economic feasibility. By embedding the adapted Business Model Canvas (BMC) into the analytical process, the DTs allow users to understand how soil-focused incentives interact with customer value propositions, revenue streams, partnerships, cost structures, and resource use. The tools were piloted in 10 case studies across six European countries, ranging from organic vineyards and multifunctional rural enterprises to forestry management and arable crop systems. Feedback from NOVASOIL’s Communities of Practice (CoP) confirmed their potential to: enhance decision-making at farm and regional level, inform the design of CAP Strategic Plans and eco-schemes, and strengthen links with emerging ecosystem service markets (carbon credits, biodiversity payments). A practical example illustrates this impact: in a Spanish vineyard case, the DTs highlighted that investing in sustainability certification schemes provided both stronger business resilience and measurable improvements in soil organic matter compared to reliance on direct subsidies. By integrating digital innovation, participatory co-design, and policy relevance, the NOVASOIL DTs represent a scalable solution for advancing soil health through evidence-based business model innovation. 9 1 Introduction 1.1 Context of WP 3 objectives The aim of Work Package 3 is to design and validate a digital toolbox that facilitates the adoption and optimisation of incentives supporting sustainable soil health business models. Task 3.3 specifically focuses on developing and testing web-based analytical tools that enable users to: select the most relevant incentives in relation to their production system and business model, evaluate costs and benefits in a structured and transparent way, and generate evidence-based recommendations for farm-level, regional, and EU policy decision-making. These tools are conceived as fully online, responsive applications that remove the need for complex infrastructure, ensuring accessibility even for small-scale farmers with limited digital resources. 1.2 Connection with the other WPs WP1 and WP2 provided the evidence base: stakeholder needs, mapping of existing incentives, and typologies of soil-health business models.. WP3 operationalises this knowledge into concrete tools, tested in diverse European case studies and validated with CoPs.WP5 ensures wider dissemination, policy alignment, and integration into educational and advisory frameworks, aiming to create a digital ecosystem around soil health business models. 1.3 Purpose and scope of the document Deliverable D3.8 focuses on the final version of the analytical tools (Tool 2) within the NOVASOIL toolbox. 10 It contains three major components (fig. 1). The final version of the first tool – digital hub of knowledge – was presented in Deliverable D 3.5 Report on final version of the knowledge hub for soil health business models (Nikolov et al. 2024b). The preliminary version of the third component of the toolbox is presented in Deliverable D 3.6 Preliminary version on decision support tool for soil health business models (Nikolov et al. 2024c). The report for the final version will be submitted on the month 36. Stepping on the current WP 3 results, the second component of digital tools support the user to choose the most appropriate incentives that could add value in terms of business model and based on the internal, external environment, and costs for implementation. Figure 1. NOVASOIL digital toolbox Deliverable D 3.8 Report on final version of tools for analysis of the soil health business models aims to present the NOVASOIL digital tools for analysis of new incentives, developed under Task 3.3. This report is a follow-up to Deliverable D 3.3 Preliminary version of tools for analysis of the soil health business models submitted in February 2024. The value proposition of these DTs can be summarised in three stages: 1. The problem: Farmers and advisors face a fragmented landscape of incentives with unclear cost-benefit ratios and uncertain long-term impact on soil health. 2. The NOVASOIL solution: Digital tools that combine soil, economic, and business data in a user-friendly, stepwise process—mapping, gap analysis, SWOT, AHP, and cost-adjusted evaluation. 3. The benefits: Empowering stakeholders to make more informed choices, design resilient business strategies, and support soils as a productive and ecological asset. 17 Step Input data Process Output data Usage in the next step List of potential opportunities - external factors that can be exploited for farm’s growth; List of potential threats - external factors that could negatively impact the farm organisation. 4 Evaluation of the influence of each factor from the group’s strengths and weaknesses against each factor from the group’s opportunities and threats. Sum the scores of each factor evaluation. NA The list of the factors with highest sum of scores are selected. 5 5-step evaluation the importance of each alternative (SWOT factor) regarding each other for each incentive and the incentives themselves using 9-point scale. AHP analysis and consistency index. The weights of each of the analysed new incentives. The sum of the weights is equal to 1. The weighed results are used as a backbone for the next DT analysis. DT3 – SWOT analysis 6 Estimation of the necessary investment for each V-AHP analysis Weights of each of the analysed incentives taking into consideration the external environment and the needed investment as well. The user could download a pdf report of the results. NA 18 2.2 Improvement of tool 2 - Digital tools for soil health business models As was mentioned above, the first CoP evaluation was conducted in the period December 2024 and February 2025. It was collected answers from Bulgaria France, Germany, Latvia, Italy, and Spain. Based on it, the tool 2 was updated, accordingly. Table 4 presents the identified flaws and the measures taken. Table 4 Identified issues in tool 2 Preliminary version Final version Functionality Inconsistent tool logic causes unpredictable results Rebuilt tool logic for consistent and reliable operation Core features operating with notable limitations Enhanced core feature performance Performance issues during regular operation Optimized processes for smoother execution across the platform User Experience Confusing navigation structure Streamlined navigation with clear pathways Unintuitive interface design Redesigned interface with improved visual hierarchy Limited accessibility features Intuitive controls and interaction patterns Technical Issues Multiple bugs affecting critical functions Fixed priority bugs affecting user workflow Accessibility barriers for certain user groups Implemented comprehensive accessibility standards Navigation dead-ends and circular paths Simplified navigation system with logical progression Additionally, improvement regarding database, design, and documents and labeling. The changes are described in table 5. Table 5 Improvements related to database, visualisation, and general experience Database Implementation Design & UX Refinement Documentation & Labeling User database development underway Fine-tuning visual design elements Creating comprehensive usage 19 Account management and personalization features pending Data migration and integration planning Optimizing user flows and interaction patterns Conducting additional usability testing guidelines for each tool Implementing clear titles and descriptions for all tools Developing contextual help documentation After the update, it was made a CoP survey in the period of April to June 2025. The collected answers are from Bulgaria, Estonia, France, and Italia. The collected information showed that the users evaluate tool 2 as easy to understand and intuitive, with acceptable time and data to use, and with good usefulness regarding minimizing the cost of supply by implementing soil health business models. All the surveys not included in this report will be taken into consideration in D3.7 Testing and valorization. 2.3 Description of the NOVASOIL DTs As it was mentioned above, the NOVASOIL Digital tools for soil health business models contain three tools for incentives’ evaluation. 2.3.1 DT 1 Case study current existing incentive analysis This tool is focused on evaluation of the current incentives and identifying the gaps taking into consideration the soil health business model. There is no change in the methodology compared to the preliminary version. Currently applied incentives mapping The incentives mapping aims to categorize incentives that have been implemented within the agricultural and forestry sector to promote soil health business models, encompassing social, economic, and environmental aspects. For the incentives mapping was applied the methodology defined in D3.1 – Report on mapping existing incentives for sustainable soil health business models (Nikolov et al. 2023a). It was adopted tailormade Business Model Canvas (BMC) to evaluate the incentives effects to the soil health’s business model in five important building blocks of the business model – 20 customer value preposition, channels and partnerships, revenue and cost structure, key resources, and key activities. Using scale from 1 to 3 the user should evaluate the influence of the currently applied incentive to both soil health influence and the five business model building blocks mentioned above. Also, they should mark with yes/no regarding the influence on the soil health strategy. The visualization of the evaluation is presented on figure 4. Figure 4 Incentives mapping graph The prioritization (fig. 4) is made using the following approaches. The incentives are rated based on these criteria, resulting in the formation of 9 quadrants (Figure 5). Table 6 provides a description of the characteristics of each quadrant. In the graphic, additional information is conveyed through the size of the balloons. The largest size indicates a strong influence of the incentive on the environmental/technology block, while medium and small size bubbles indicate medium and low influence, respectively. The bottom left quadrants represent the lowest influence of the incentives, while the top right quadrants (VI, VIII, and IX) indicate the highest influence. 21 Figure 5 Quadrants distribution of the mapping incentives Table 6 Characterisation of the quadrants Quadrants Characteristics of the quadrant Quadrant 1 The incentive has low influence on soil health strategies and low influence on socioeconomic block of the business model Quadrant 2 The incentive has low influence on soil health strategies and medium influence on socioeconomic block of the business model Quadrant 3 The incentive has low influence on soil health strategies and high impact on socioeconomic block of the business model Quadrant 4 The incentive has medium influence on soil health strategies and low influence on socioeconomic block of the business model Quadrant 5 The incentive has medium influence on soil health strategies and medium influence on socioeconomic block of the business model Quadrant 6 The incentive has high influence on soil health strategies and medium influence on socioeconomic block of the business model Quadrant 7 The incentive has high influence on soil health strategies and low influence on socioeconomic block of the business model Quadrant 8 The incentive has high influence on soil health strategies and medium influence on socioeconomic block of the business model Quadrant 9 The incentive has high influence on soil health strategies and high influence on socioeconomic block of the business 22 model Gap analysis and new incentives selection Then, the user completes the new incentives. The aim is to identify those that are affecting the identified gaps of the currently applied incentives regarding the business model (using table 6). The tool gives back recommendation if the incentive is appropriate or not in terms of the business model influence. It could be an iterative process which identifies several appropriate new incentives. It is used the adapted FAO classification from Garrett and Neves (2016) that was used in D3.1 (Nikolov et al., 2023). Table 7 Typology of incentives and their relation to the BMC blocks Category of incentives Business Model Canvas building blocks Customer value preposition Channels and partnerships Revenue and cost Key resources Key activities Policydriven 1.1 Prohibition of use 1.2 Property use rights 1.3 Taxes/charges 1.4 Mandatory farm set-asides 1.5 Subsidies 1.6 Conservation easements 1.7 Permits and quotas 1.8 Marketing labels (certificates/susta inability standards) 1.9 Offsets 1.10 Impact funds 1.11 Responsible sourcing of agriculture products and 23 Category of incentives Business Model Canvas building blocks Customer value preposition Channels and partnerships Revenue and cost Key resources Key activities services 1.12 Corporate social responsibility Voluntary 2.1 Green bonds 2.2 Voluntary farm set-asides 2.3 Conservation concessions 2.4 Direct Payment for Ecosystem Services 2.5 Rewards for Ecosystem Services 2.6 Marketing labels (without certificates or standards) The last step is to rank the identified new incentives. The analysis is focused on the three most important incentives could continue using the next tool. 2.3.2 DT 2 New incentive analysis To ensure that the evaluation of the incentives will be as close as possible to the actual problems and opportunities of the investigated farm the methodology in DT 2 combines SWOT analysis and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis. It produces data-driven recommendations for which new incentives would be most effective for the soil health business model. There is no change in the methodology compared to the preliminary version. SWOT analysis The role of the SWOT analysis is to derive the criteria for evaluating the incentives. 24 The user should identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. To support that process, four lists of factors have to be created by the evaluator: 1. List of potential strengths - internal factors that give a competitive advantage; 2. List of potential weaknesses - internal factors that put the farm at a disadvantage; 3. List of potential opportunities - external factors that can be exploited for farm’s growth; 4. List of potential threats - external factors that could negatively impact the farm organisation. The user should rank factors in a cross-rating matrix (table 7), using 3point scale. The farmer must evaluate each factor from the group’s strengths and weaknesses against each factor from the group’s opportunities and threats. The tool automatically sums the factor scores by rows and by columns. Thus, within each group of factors (opportunities, threats, strengths, weaknesses), the factor with the highest score can be determined. These factors are used to feed the AHP analysis. Table 8 Cross-rating of the factors Opportunities Threats Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Strengths Factor 1 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Factor 2 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Factor 3 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Weaknesses Factor 1 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Factor 2 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Factor 3 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating AHP analysis On the second stage of the methodology should be performed AHP analysis. AHP can help with weighing various alternatives according to a set of criteria, when the influences between alternatives and criteria are hierarchical. The user evaluates the factors’ importance for soil health in their soil health business model making a pairwise comparison of the alternatives per criterion (fig. 5). The number of criteria and alternatives depends on the case. The user decides how much, and which are the criteria and alternatives. 25 The goal of the analysis is the evaluation of the incentives. The alternatives in the model are the incentives derived from the DT1. The criteria are the factors with the highest rating from the application of SWOT analysis. Source: Authors’ figure Figure 6 Frame of the AHP model Based on the criteria and alternatives thus derived, a questionnaire is visualized. The questionnaire is visualized in the software, where the participants should put a rating from 1/9 to 9. The rating in the proposed analysis can be done individually or based on consensus if there is more than one participant. The output of the analysis is ranking the incentives based on the SWOT analysis evaluation (table 9). Table 9 AHP output AHP Incentive 1 20% Incentive 2 30% Incentive 3 50% 26 There is an integrated consistency index as a check of the input data which doesn’t allow you to continue with the analysis if the data is not consistent (the index is below 0.2). The Consistency Index (CI) in the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) measures the logical consistency of the pairwise comparisons made by decision-makers. A commonly referenced threshold is CI ≤ 0.2, indicating an acceptable level of inconsistency; however, due to theoretical ambiguity and varied interpretation in literature, we have included the CI value for reference only, without enforcing strict adherence to this threshold. For the calculation of the Consistency Index, the methodology described by Katame and Negi (2014) is applied, which involves determining the principal eigenvalue of the pairwise comparison matrix and applying the standard CI formula: ��=(λₘₐₓ−n) (n − 1) 2.2.3 DT 3 Business model assessment of incentives implementation The V-AHP method combines the use of the AHP decision-making method based on multi-criteria analysis with the "Lean" method. The Lean method is used by weighing the results of AHP with the costs necessary to implement the relevant business model. In this way, the subjective ratings are combined with an objective quantifier to produce the final rating score (Compagno et al., 2013). Each incentive is a different scenario for the user. As an input, the user should make estimation of the necessary investment for each scenario. Based on this, estimation weights are derived (table 10). Table 10 Deriving the weights for the scenarios Estimation Weights Incentive 1 (Scenario 1) XXXXXX EUR 0.2 Incentive 2 (Incentive 1) XXXXXX EUR 0.4 Incentive 3 (Incentive 1) XXXXXX EUR 0.4 The result is derived from the weights from table 4 with the result of the AHP application (table 11). The output from V-AHP is visualized in table 11. Table 11 Weights for the incentive from V-AHP considering the financial expenditure for applying the incentive V-AHP Incentive 1 15% 33 oThey provide transparent evidence for eco-scheme design and performance monitoring. 2. Support for ecosystem service markets: oBy quantifying the cost-effectiveness of incentives, the tools strengthen the case for payments for ecosystem services (e.g. carbon sequestration, biodiversity credits). oThey offer a pathway to link farmers with emerging green finance instruments such as carbon markets, sustainability-linked loans, and eco-certifications. 3. Capacity building and advisory services: oThe DTs can be embedded into digital advisory platforms, providing farmers and cooperatives with easy-to-use, evidencebased guidance. oThey are well suited for integration into agricultural training programmes, vocational schools, and advisory networks, helping to build long-term digital literacy in rural areas. 4. Regional and collective approaches: oThe DTs can be adapted not only for individual farms but also for collective business models (cooperatives, producer organisations, landscape-level initiatives). oThis creates opportunities for cross-sector synergies and regional soil stewardship strategies. 34 Resources 1. Nikolov D., Tzvetanova E., Boevsky I., Banov M., Kostenarov K., Todorova K. (2024b) NOVASOIL D 3.5 Report on final version of the knowledge hub for soil health business models 2. Nikolov D., Tzvetanova E., Boevsky I., Banov M., Kostenarov K., Todorova K. (2024c) NOVASOIL D 3.6 Preliminary version on decision support tool for soil health business models 3. Nikolov D., Tzvetanova E., Boevsky I., Banov M., Kostenarov K., Todorova K. (2024a) NOVASOIL D 3.3 Preliminary version of tools for analysis of the soil health business models. 4. Garrett, L. and Neves, B. (2016) Incentives for Ecosystem Services: Spectrum. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy 5. Dimitre Nikolov, Ivan Boevsky, Martin Banov, Ekatherina Tzvetanova, Krasimir Kostenarov, Tsvetelina Marinova (2023) NOVASOIL D3.1 Report on mapping existing incentives for sustainable soil health business models 6. The final version of the tool is available on: https://staging.novasoilbma.com/ 7. Katame, R., & Negi, J. (2014). Consistency in the Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Framework for Automobile Steering Technology. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 3(5), 1–6. 8. Nikolov D., Tzvetanova E., Boevsky I., Banov M., Kostenarov K., Dragnev P. (2025) NOVASOIL D 3.7 Testing and valorisation of toolbox instruments 35 Acknowledgment