ABSTRACT. Although the literature on sustainability assessment tools to support decision making in agriculture is rapidly growing, little attention has been paid to the actual tool choice. We focused on the choice of more complex integrated indicator-based tools at the farm level. The objective was to determine key characteristics as criteria for tool choice. This was done with an in-depth comparison of 2 cases: the Monitoring Tool for Integrated Farm Sustainability and the Public Goods Tool. They differ in characteristics that may influence tool choice: data, time, and budgetary requirements. With an enhanced framework, we derived 11 key characteristics to describe differences between the case tools. Based on the key characteristics, we defined 2 types of indicator-based tools: full sustainability assessment (FSA) and rapid sustainability assessment (RSA). RSA tools are more oriented toward communicating and learning. They are therefore more suitable for use by a larger group of farmers, can help to raise awareness, trigger farmers to become interested in sustainable farming, and highlight areas of good or bad performance. If and when farmers increase their commitment to on-farm sustainability, they can gain additional insight by using an FSA tool. Based on complementary and modular use of the tools, practical recommendations for the different end users, i.e., researchers, farmers, advisers, and so forth, have been suggested.

Arctic ecosystems are known to be extremely vulnerable to climate change. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenarios project extreme climate events to increase in frequency and severity, we exposed High Arctic tundra plots during 8 days in summer to a temperature rise of approximately 9 1C, induced by infrared irradiation, followed by a recovery period. Increased plant growth rates during the heat wave, increased green cover at the end of the heat wave and higher chlorophyll concentrations of all four predominating species (Salix arctica Pall., Arctagrostis latifolia Griseb., Carex bigelowii Torr. ex Schwein and Polygonum viviparum L.) after the recovery period, indicated stimulation of vegetative growth. Improved plant performance during the heat wave was confirmed at plant level by higher leaf photochemical efficiency (F v /F m ) and at ecosystem level by increased gross canopy photosynthesis. However, in the aftermath of the temperature extreme, the heated plants were more stressed than the unheated plants, probably because they acclimated to warmer conditions and experienced the return to (low) ambient as stressful. We also calculated the impact of the heat wave on the carbon balance of this tundra ecosystem. Below-and aboveground respiration were stimulated by the instantaneous warmer soil and canopy, respectively, outweighing the increased gross photosynthesis. As a result, during the heat wave, the heated plots were a smaller sink compared with their unheated counterparts, whereas afterwards the balance was not affected. If other High Arctic tundra ecosystems react similarly, more frequent extreme temperature events in a future climate may shift this biome towards a source. It is uncertain, however, whether these short-term effects will hold when C exchange rates acclimate to higher average temperatures.

Sustainability indicators are well recognized for their potential to assess and monitor sustainable development of agricultural systems. A large number of indicators are proposed in various sustainability assessment frameworks, which raises concerns regarding the validity of approaches, usefulness and trust in such frameworks. Selecting indicators requires transparent and well-defined procedures to ensure the relevance and validity of sustainability assessments. The objective of this study, therefore, was to determine whether 123Environ Dev Sustain DOI 10.1007/s10668-016-9803-x experts agree on which criteria are most important in the selection of indicators and indicator sets for robust sustainability assessments. Two groups of experts (Temperate Agriculture Research Network and New Zealand Sustainability Dashboard) were asked to rank the relative importance of eleven criteria for selecting individual indicators and of nine criteria for balancing a collective set of indicators. Both ranking surveys reveal a startling lack of consensus amongst experts about how best to measure agricultural sustainability and call for a radical rethink about how complementary approaches to sustainability assessments are used alongside each other to ensure a plurality of views and maximum collaboration and trust amongst stakeholders. To improve the transparency, relevance and robustness of sustainable assessments, the context of the sustainability assessment, including prioritizations of selection criteria for indicator selection, must be accounted for. A collaborative design process will enhance the acceptance of diverse values and prioritizations embedded in sustainability assessments. The process by which indicators and sustainability frameworks are established may be a much more important determinant of their success than the final shape of the assessment tools. Such an emphasis on process would make assessments more transparent, transformative and enduring.

ABSTRACT. Adoption of sustainability assessment tools in agricultural practice is often disappointing. One of the critical success factors for adoption is the tool development process. Because scientific attention to these development processes and insights about them are rather limited, we aimed to foster the scientific debate on this topic. This was done by reflecting on the development process of a Flemish sustainability assessment tool, MOTIFS. MOTIFS was developed with the aim of becoming widely adopted by farmers and farm advisors, but this result was not achieved. Our reflection process showed success factors favoring and barriers hindering tool adoption. These were grouped into three clusters of lessons learned for sound tool development: (1) institutional embeddedness, (2) ownership, and (3) tool functions. This clustering allowed us to formulate actions for researchers on the following aspects: (1) learning from stakeholders and end users, (2) providing coaching for appropriate tool use, and (3) structuring development of different tool types and exploring spin-offs from existing tools. We hope these normative results evoke other researchers to feed a debate on understanding tool development.

No abstract