Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture
Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.eiar.2009.06.002
复制
发表时间：
2010-02-01
影响因子：
7.9
通讯作者：
Steinberger, Julia K.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Binder, Claudia R.;Feola, Giuseppe;Steinberger, Julia K.
本文通过分别分析Wiek和Binder[Wiek，A，Binder，C.]提出的规范、系统和程序维度，提出了一个评估可持续性评估方法的框架。环境影响评估2005年修订版，25：589-608。]长期以来，农业可持续性评估主要集中在环境和技术问题上，忽视了可持续性的经济方面，尤其是社会方面。农业的多功能性和成果的适用性。针对这些缺点，为农业部门制定了几种综合可持续性评估方法。本文综述了7种评估方法，它们代表了该领域发展的工具的多样性。评估方法可分为三类：(I)自上而下的农场评估方法；(Ii)自上而下的利益相关者参与的区域评估方法；(Iii)自下而上的、利益相关者参与的综合参与式或跨学科方法。结果很容易显示在选择评估方法时所遇到的权衡。一个清晰、标准化、自上而下的程序可以潜在地对跨地区和跨地点的结果进行基准比较。然而，这是以系统专用性为代价的。由于自上而下的方法往往利益攸关方参与度较低，结果的应用和实施可能很困难。我们的分析表明，要将上述方面纳入农业可持续发展评价，自下而上、综合参与式或跨学科的方法是最合适的方法。(C)2009 Elsevier Inc.保留所有权利。
This paper develops a framework for evaluating sustainability assessment methods by separately analyzing their normative, systemic and procedural dimensions as suggested by Wiek and Binder [Wiek, A, Binder, C. Solution spaces for decision-making - a sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2005, 25: 589-608.]. The framework is then used to characterize indicator-based sustainability assessment methods in agriculture.For a long time, sustainabillity assessment in agriculture has focused mostly on environmental and technical issues, thus neglecting the economic and, above all, the social aspects of sustainability. the multifunctionality of agriculture and the applicability of the results. In response to these shortcomings, several integrative sustainability assessment methods have been developed for the agricultural sector. This paper reviews seven of these that represent the diversity of tools developed in this area.The reviewed assessment methods can be categorized into three types: (i) top-down farm assessment methods; (ii) top-down regional assessment methods with some stakeholder participation; (iii) bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary methods with stakeholder participation throughout the process. The results readily show the trade-offs encountered when selecting an assessment method. A clear, standardized, top-down procedure allows for potentially benchmarking and comparing results across regions and sites. However, this comes at the cost of system specificity. As the top-down methods often have low stakeholder involvement, the application and implementation of the results might be difficult. Our analysis suggests that to include the aspects mentioned above in agricultural sustainability assessment, the bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary methods are the most suitable ones. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.