Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice

Rigby, Dan; Woodhouse, Philip; Young, Trevor; Burton, Michael

doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(01)00245-2

Cited by 340 publications

(247 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

217

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Assessment tools have been developed for various levels of the food production system; i.e., farm, regional, national, or global (Bockstaller et al 2009, Binder et al 2010. Because of the complexity of food production systems, different types of tools have been developed (de Ridder et al 2007, Binder et al 2010, ranging from indicator sets (e.g., Girardin et al 2000, Rigby et al 2001, Zahm et al 2008, Grenz et al 2011) to simulation models (e.g., Cerf et al 2012, Van Meensel et al 2012. These tools make complex sustainability issues more tangible, and therefore support decision-making at the previously mentioned levels (e.g., Halberg et al 2005, Castoldi and Bechini 2010.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflection on the development process of a sustainability assessment tool: learning from a Flemish case

Triste¹,

Marchand²,

Debruyne³

et al. 2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflection on the development process of a sustainability assessment tool: learning from a Flemish case

Triste¹,

Marchand²,

Debruyne³

et al. 2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…how can we decide? Gallopin (1997) and Rigby et al (2001) survey a wide range of literature and reports that in different sources an environmental indicator has been identified as "a variable…a parameter…a measure…a statistical measure…a proxy…a value…a meter or measuring instrument…a fraction…an index…something… a piece of information…a single quantity… an empirical model… a sign". Indicators are pieces of information, which simplify complex phenomena and highlight the trends of system functioning, through summarizing or typifying the characteristics of particular systems (Pagina, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Model for Incorporated Measurement of Sustainable Development Comprising Remote Sensing Data and Using the Concept of Biodiversity

Petrosyan¹

2010

JSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The central point of the paper is on concern of how to utilize indicators to observe sustainable development in an applicable and valuable way. The aim of the work was to propose a model for achieving a composite sustainable development index using the concept of Biodiversity in order to track incorporated information on social, economic and environmental dimension of the municipality with time periods, according to: 1) Social (Population); 2) Economic (Agriculture, Tourism, Agricultural Goods and Industry); 3) Environmental (output of remote sensing data using Fragstat software). An attractive approach is suggested for the environmental dimension. The calculated metrics become an input to the model like Environmental Indicators. In addition, the concepts of Biodiversity are kept for Environmental Indicators in the following way: Ecosystem = Landscape Level and Species = Class Level. Finally, the results, discussions and conclusions are provided for each existing theme, each dimension and CSDI.

show abstract

“…and Smith;Csaki et al, 2008;Davidova, 2014;Diazabakana et al, 2014;EC, 2001;FAO, 2013;Fuentes, 2004;Häni et al, 2006 ;OECD, 2001;Rigby et al, 2001;Sauvenier et al, 2005;UN, 2015). During post-communist transition and EU integration of Bulgarian agriculture there has evolved a specific governance structure consisting of numerous "unregistered" farms of Natural (Physical) Persons, and a few registered agri-business enterprises of Sole Traders, Companies (Corporation), and Cooperatives (Bachev and Tsuji, 2001;Bachev & Nanseki, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability of Farms of Natural Persons in Bulgaria

Bachev

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The issue of adequate assessment of socio-economic and ecological sustainability of divers agricultural holdings is among most topical academic and practical problems. It is particularly important for smallholder farms accounting for the majority of all farms in the globe.In Bulgaria unregistered farms of Natural Persons account for almost 98% of all farms in the country, cultivate a third of all farmlands, graze 85% of cows, 90% of sheep, and around a third of pigs, and employ almost 93% of workforce in the sectors. This article applies a holistic framework and assesses sustainability of farms of Natural Persons in Bulgaria during current stage of EU CAP implementation. Initially a new governance aspect of farm sustainability is justified and method outlined. After that assessment is made of integral, governance, economic, social, environmental sustainability of farms of Natural Persons of different size, specialization, and location, and comparative sustainability to other type of farms. Finally, directions for further research and amelioration of sustainability assessment practices are suggested. Overall sustainability of Natural Persons in the country is at a good level, with superior levels for environmental and social sustainability, close to the low level governance sustainability, and inferior economic sustainability. Comparative sustainability of holdings is lower than other juridical type. There are great variations in sustainability levels of farms of different kind and location. Share of Natural Persons with good and high sustainability is smaller than other categories of farms and majority of Natural Persons have no comparative advantages in terms of sustainability, and in a middle term will cease to exist.

show abstract

Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice

Cited by 340 publications

References 10 publications

Reflection on the development process of a sustainability assessment tool: learning from a Flemish case

Reflection on the development process of a sustainability assessment tool: learning from a Flemish case

A Model for Incorporated Measurement of Sustainable Development Comprising Remote Sensing Data and Using the Concept of Biodiversity

Sustainability of Farms of Natural Persons in Bulgaria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About