Integrating agri-environmental indicators, ecosystem services assessment, life cycle assessment and yield gap analysis to assess the environmental sustainability of agriculture

Bergez, Jacques-Éric; Béthinger, A.; Bockstaller, Christian; Cederberg, Christel; Ceschia, Éric; Guilpart, Nicolas; Lange, Sabine; Müller, Felix; Reidsma, P.; Riviere, C.; Schader, Christian; Thérond, Olivier; Werf, H.M.G. van der

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109107

Cited by 27 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These chain reaction flows Impact the environment and the provision of ecosystem benefits and those of the socioeconomic system, which leads to a societal and political Response that refers to the actions carried out by society and governments in order to minimize the negative effects on the environment due to anthropogenic developments. To represent this cause-effect chain for the use of CC on the environment, we used the analytical framework developed by [16], who developed a set of 41 environmental issues sorted in a DPSIR manner:…”

Section: Data Collection and Qualitative Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effects of Cover Crops on Multiple Environmental Sustainability Indicators—A Review

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cover crops have been introduced in European agricultural systems due to their multiple agro-ecological services and environmental benefits, which do not necessarily affect profitability. Our paper follows a systematic literature review approach to highlight the results of 51 studies on the effects of adopting cover crops. We used a list of 41 agri-environmental sustainability indicators to present the different impacts of cover crops in European pedoclimatic situations. Herein, we review the positive effects of cover crops on agri-environmental sustainability (e.g., reduced soil erosion and nitrate leaching, higher carbon sequestration and soil quality, biodiversity enhancement, and reduced mineral fertilizer requirement), but also the more variable effects associated with the use of cover crops (e.g., management and interest for farm economics, nutrient and water competition with cash crops, and improved GHG balance, even if N20 emissions are slightly increased). Our review highlights these synergies among the sustainability indicators. More research data are needed on the multiple effects of cover crops in the context of diverse site-specific conditions and farm-management practices, especially between the traditional positive effects of cover crops (i.e., soil C sequestration and fertilizer savings) and their effects on climate change (i.e., GHG net balance and potential effects on global warming).

show abstract

Section: Data Collection and Qualitative Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main purpose of this work is to review the effects of introducing CC on the environmental sustainability of agroecosystems by reviewing the literature while considering a wide range of sustainability indicators. This paper describes the empirical material of the conceptual companion paper written by [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Cover Crops on Multiple Environmental Sustainability Indicators—A Review

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It complements other analytical tools used in environmental management and assessment, such as life cycle assessment (LCA), which quantitatively compares the environmental performance of a product or process during its life cycle. While LCA is specific for a particular situation at a defined scale (e.g., company, industry, country), DPSIR provides a broader and strategic perspective on an environmental issue [74].…”

Section: Drivers-pressures-state-impacts-responses (Dpsir) Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Environmental Impact of E-Waste Microplastics: A Systematic Review and Analysis Based on the Driver–Pressure–State–Impact–Response (DPSIR) Framework

Prata

2024

Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microplastics resulting from the fragmentation of plastics in electronic waste (e-waste) are an emerging but understudied environmental concern. This systematic review employs a Driver–Pressure–State–Impact–Response (DPSIR) framework to investigate the sources, prevalence, and environmental effects of e-waste microplastics, identifying knowledge gaps. The available literature on e-waste microplastics was retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science (n = 24), and trends in electrical and electronic equipment were retrieved from European Union databases. The growing incorporation of electronics into daily life results in a global annual growth rate of 3–4% for e-waste, of which only 17.4% is collected for recycling. E-waste microplastics are frequently found in soils near disposal or disassembly facilities, potentially leaching hazardous metals (e.g., Pb) or organic compounds (e.g., flame retardants). These microplastics contaminate the food chain and can have adverse effects on the soil and gut microbiome, organisms, and human health, either independently or associated with other chemicals. Responses include the implementation of regulations, improvement of waste management systems, and mitigation measures. Despite these concerns, the literature on the topic remains limited, emphasizing the need for additional research on the identification of e-waste microplastics and their toxicity.

show abstract

“…Assessing its level allows for determining a set of measures promoting green growth. In the agricultural sector, great importance is attached to the so‐called agri‐environmental factors (Bergez et al, 2022; Makowski et al, 2009; OECD, 2013). They are very important for measuring the environmental consequences of agricultural practices and monitoring progress towards sustainable development (Femia et al, 2017; Sidhoum et al, 2022).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Green growth in agriculture―New measurement concept and its empirical verification

Kasztelan

Nowak

2023

Sustainable Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes a new method for evaluating green growth in agriculture (GGA) based on a set of key performance indicators and a synthetic index. To this end, we used the zero unitarisation method. The objects of study were seven countries/groups of countries with the largest share in agricultural production in 2020. This paper attempts to answer the following questions: (1) Has there been any progress in fulfilling the assumptions of the green growth concept implemented in the agricultural sector of the examined countries? (2) Which countries do better, and which do worse in that respect? (3) What are the challenges respective countries need to face? In the analysed years, the mean GGA index increased from 0.3287 to 0.3342, which means that the overall level of ‘greening’ in agriculture grew insignificantly. Out of the seven analysed countries/regions, China did the best in handling the challenges of GGA, while India did the worst. The paper discusses the reasons for this state of affairs, simultaneously making recommendations for improving the existing situation.

show abstract

Integrating agri-environmental indicators, ecosystem services assessment, life cycle assessment and yield gap analysis to assess the environmental sustainability of agriculture

Cited by 27 publications

References 68 publications

The Effects of Cover Crops on Multiple Environmental Sustainability Indicators—A Review

The Effects of Cover Crops on Multiple Environmental Sustainability Indicators—A Review

The Environmental Impact of E-Waste Microplastics: A Systematic Review and Analysis Based on the Driver–Pressure–State–Impact–Response (DPSIR) Framework

Green growth in agriculture―New measurement concept and its empirical verification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About