A Literature Review on

Frameworks and Methods for Measuring and

Monitoring Sustainable Agriculture

Draft version: 2
30-11-2016
Editing completed 01.02.2017

1
Contents
1. Agriculture – elements and definition....................................................................................... 3
2. The concepts and definitions of sustainable agriculture .......................................................... 5
3.The main principles and characteristics of agricultural sustainability ..................................... 12
4. Explaining the need for monitoring and measuring of agricultural sustainability .................. 14
5. Terminology used in assessing agricultural sustainability....................................................... 15
Components of measurement of sustainability .......................................................................... 15
Terminology................................................................................................................................. 18
6. Levels at which agricultural sustainability is measured .......................................................... 18
7. Agricultural sustainability measurement indices .................................................................... 20
Criteria for selecting indicators ................................................................................................... 25
8. Introducing indicators for measuring agricultural sustainability ............................................ 26
Indicators for measuring agricultural non-sustainability ............................................................ 35
9. Proposing a common set of indicators for measuring agricultural sustainability ................... 38
at the farm level .......................................................................................................................... 38
Indicators of sustainability at the regional level ......................................................................... 43
Indicators of sustainability at the national level ......................................................................... 46
Indicators of sustainability at the international level ................................................................. 49
Sustainability indicators for livestock systems ............................................................................ 49
10. Proposing data-collection methods for measuring agricultural sustainability ..................... 53
Primary data ................................................................................................................................ 55
Secondary data ............................................................................................................................ 55
Estimates ..................................................................................................................................... 55
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 55
References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………57

2
Acronyms
DSR driving-force-state-response (method)
IDEA indicateurs de durabilité des exploitations agricoles (farm sustainability indicators)
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PG public goods
RISE response-inducing sustainability evaluation
SAFA sustainability assessment of food and agriculture systems

3
1. Agriculture – elements and definition
The activity termed "agriculture" encompasses several different elements such as crops,
livestock, fisheries, aquaculture and forestry. Spedding (2012) notes that the first issue to clarify
is "What is agriculture?" Although there is general agreement as to the types of things, people,
plants and animals that can be included in the concept, this is inadequate if the objective is the
measurement of agricultural sustainability. Even so, few attempts have been made to formulate
a precise definition that is measurable, nationally relevant and internationally comparable.
There are many useful umbrella terms for sustainable agriculture that cover numerous different
elements, but their usefulness may be limited if they are defined too rigidly.
Agriculture is a major human activity, and one that has a purpose. In an overall perspective,
agriculture is defined as an activity carried out primarily to produce food, fibres, fuel and other
commodities through the controlled use of mainly terrestrial plants and animals (Spedding,
2012).
The Spedding definition attempts to cover all systems of agriculture i.e. – crops, livestock,
fisheries, aquaculture and so on – but each system has individual characteristics which creates
some difficulties with regard to measurement. A number of production systems, for example,
are based in buildings and use little or no land: they do handle biological organisms, usually in
highly controlled environments, and yet nobody would classify them as "farming1". The major
crop-production systems are designed to produce food for human consumption, feed for
animals, fibres for fuel, construction or manufacturing, and miscellaneous products such as
tobacco and ingredients for perfumes and drugs.
In terms of land area used, seven major crops – wheat, rice, maize, pulses, roots and tubers,
sugar and cotton – occupy the largest proportion of the word's cultivated areas. Their
importance is evident in that they contribute substantially to the energy intake of the world's
population (Spedding, 2012). Ten Napel et al. (2011) show that the practice of agriculture
started approximately 10,000 years ago when humans sought to produce food, feed and other
useful biomass through the management of biological and ecological systems, with technical
inputs. In this context, livestock production or farming systems constitute one of the most
important agricultural sectors.
Smith and McDonald (1997) consider the scope of agriculture in terms of spatial scale,
emphasizing that at the field scale agriculture is largely concerned with soil conditions, nutrient
levels, water availability and plant growth. At the farm scale, agriculture is concerned with crop
and livestock production and management, and the organization and viability of farm
operations. At the regional scale, agriculture is a major factor in natural resource use and land
use. And at the national and global scales, agriculture involves trade, equity (such as equitable
distribution of income) and the supply of sufficient food.
Since the first agricultural revolution approximately 10,000 years ago, crop growing and
livestock raising have been the primary causes of loss and degradation of natural ecosystems.
Today, 37 percent of the Earth’s land surface other than Antarctica is dedicated to growing
food: 12 percent is cropland and 25 percent is grazing land. Most current changes in land-use
involve forests, wetlands and grasslands being converted into farms and pastures: for example,
agriculture was responsible for about 80 percent of tropical deforestation between 2000 and
2010 (Reytar et al., 2014).

1
. "Faming" and "Agriculture" are used interchangeably. But, it should be noted that they are
different concepts. This study follows the measurement of agricultural sustainability as a whole
and farming is considered as a distinct (common) form of agriculture.
4
Rao and Rogers (2006) state that an agro-ecosystem is an ecological and socio-economic
system comprising domesticated plants and/or animals and the people who husband them with
a view to producing food, fibre or other agricultural products. Agro-ecosystems defined in this
way are hierarchical, starting from cropping systems and livestock systems to farming systems,
village systems and global-level systems (see Figure 1). At each level there are distinct
attributes for which sustainability indicators can be derived.

Figure 1. Hierarchy of agro-ecosystems

On the basis of the earlier discussion about "agriculture", it can be said that there are different
interpretations of the term, but that the definition of agriculture in this literature review mainly
refers to cropping, land-based or cultivation-based agriculture and livestock production and
management.

2. The concepts and definitions of sustainable agriculture

The idea of "sustainable agriculture" has gained prominence since the publication of the
Brundtland Report in 1987,2 in line with the overarching concept of "sustainable development"
(Velten et al., 2015). Sustainability in agricultural systems is widely discussed, and is viewed
in international fora as essential for the transition to global sustainable development
(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2001; Binder et al.,
2010).
Despite wide consensus as to its relevance, there has been considerable variation in terms of
how sustainability in agriculture is defined and how it is actually pursued in the policy-making
process (Binder et al., 2010). This is partly because it is a derivative of a range of "alternative"
agricultures such as organic, regenerative, low-input and ecological agriculture (Lockeretz,
1988; Dunlap et al., 1992).
It also reflects the fact that competing stakeholders tend to define sustainability in ways that
serve their particular interests (Dunlap et al., 1992; Allen et al., 1991). The lack of agreement

2Published as Our Common Future by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. Its targets
were multilateralism and interdependence of nations in the search for a sustainable development path.

5
on the definition has led some researchers such as Hansen (1996) to question the usefulness of
the concept of “agricultural sustainability” (Binder et al., 2010), and it has allowed vested
interests to exploit the concept and use it for their own purposes (Constance, 2009; Velten et
al., 2015).
It should be noted that the idea of agricultural sustainability was first published in the 1798
work by Thomas Malthus An Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus drew attention to
possible unlimited population growth that could outstrip humanity's ability to produce food,
leading to starvation and wars. This had not happened by the beginning of the 21st century
because our growing need for food was satisfied through technological development, but in this
context constraints on economic growth and the consequent adverse effects on agricultural
productivity have become more and more important (Feher and Beke, 2013).
The concept of sustainable agriculture became widespread in the 1980s, and at least
70 definitions can be identified in the literature. These differ in subtle ways, reflecting different
values, priorities, and goals (Pretty 1995; Zhen and Routray, 2003).
Attempting to arrive at a precise, operational and absolute definition of sustainable agriculture
is exceptionally challenging, partly because there are a wide variety of parties involved in the
debate (Pretty and Hine, 2000; Rigby and Caceres, 2001). To put it briefly, three dimensions
and various levels are used to assess sustainability in agriculture, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Basic dimensions and levels for assessing agriculture sustainability
Dimensions Levels
Ecological aspects
Normative Economic aspects
Social aspects
Local
Spatial Regional
National
Long-term
Temporal
Short-term
Source: Zhen and Routray (2003); Hayati et al., 2010.

There have been numerous attempts to define sustainable agriculture. All try to address the
challenge of reducing the ambiguity around the concept and making it more concrete (Velten
et al., 2015). Table 2 shows the various concepts and definitions of sustainable agriculture
compiled by Hansen (1996); Table 3 gives 44 definitions published between 1984 and 2016.

6
Table 2. Concepts and definitions of sustainable agriculture
1. Sustainability as an ideology Source
Sustainable agriculture is a philosophy and system of farming. It has its roots in a
set of values that reflect a state of empowerment, of awareness of ecological and MacRae et al., 1990
social realities, and of one’s ability to take effective action.
...an approach or a philosophy...that integrates land stewardship with agriculture.
Land stewardship is the philosophy that land is managed with respect for use by Neher, 1992
future generations.
...a philosophy based on human goals and on understanding the long-term impact
of our activities on the environment and on other species. Use of this philosophy
Francis and Youngberg, 1990
guides our application of prior experience and the latest scientific advances to
create integrated, resource-conserving, equitable farming systems.
...farming in the image of Nature and predicated on the spiritual and practical
notions and ethical dimensions of responsible stewardship and sustainable Bidwell, 1986
production of wholesome food.
2. Sustainability as a set of strategies
...a management strategy which helps the producers to choose hybrids and
varieties, a soil fertility package, a pest management approach, a tillage system,
and a crop rotation to reduce costs of purchased inputs, minimize the impact of the Francis et al., 1987
system on the immediate and the off-farm environment, and provide a sustained
level of production and profit from farming.
...a loosely defined term for a range of strategies to cope with several agriculturally
Lockeretz, 1988
related problems causing increased concern in the US and around the world.
Farming systems are sustainable if "they minimize the use of external inputs and
Carter, 1989
maximize the use of internal inputs already existing on the farm".
...(a) the development of technology and practices that maintain and/or enhance the
quality of land and water resources; and (b) the improvements in plants and
Ruttan, 1988
animals and the advances in production practices that will facilitate the substitution
of biological technology for chemical technology.
3. Sustainability as the ability to fuel a set of goals
A sustainable agriculture is one that, over the long term, enhances environmental
quality and the resource base on which agriculture depends, provides for basic American Society of Agronomy,
human food and fiber needs, is economically viable, and enhances the quality of 1989
life for farmers and society as a whole.
...agricultural systems that are environmentally sound, profitable, and productive
and Keeney, 1989
that maintain the social fabric of the rural community.
...an agrifood sector that over the long term can simultaneously (1) maintain or
enhance environmental quality, (2) provide adequate economic and social rewards
Brklacich et al., 1991
to all individuals and firms in the production system, and (3) produce a sufficient
and accessible food supply.
...an agriculture that can evolve indefinitely toward greater human utility, greater
efficiency of resource use, and a balance with the environment that is favourable Harwood, 1990
both to humans and to most other species.
4. Sustainability as the ability to continue to survive
A system is sustainable over a defined period if outputs do not decrease when
Monteith, 1990
inputs are not increased.
Sustainability is the ability of a system to maintain productivity in spite of a major
Conway, 1985
disturbance, such as is caused by intensive stress or a large perturbation.
...the maintenance of the net benefits agriculture provides to society for present and
Gray, 1991
future generations.
Agriculture is sustainable when it remains the dominant land use over time and the
resource base can continually support production at levels needed for profitability Hamblin, 1992
(cash economy) or survival (subsistence economy).

7
Table 3. Definitions of sustainable agriculture
Definition Source
Sustainability as food sufficiency: Agriculture is sustainable when farmers produce
enough food to meet reasonable projections of global market demand.
Sustainability as stewardship: Global agriculture is sustainable if both the real
economic costs of production and the real environmental costs of production are
expected to remain constant or to fall as production expands to meet future demands
Douglass, 1984
for foodstuffs.
Sustainability as community: Agriculture will be found to be sustainable when ways
are discovered to meet future demands for foodstuffs without imposing on society real
increases in the social costs of production and without causing the distribution of
opportunities or incomes to worsen.
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without
Francis et al., 1987
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs
Sustainability is the ability of an agro-ecosystem to maintain production through time, Altieri, 1987; reported by
in the face of long term ecological constraints and socioeconomic pressures. Goldman, 1996
The concept of sustainable development encompasses:
- help for the very poor...;
- ... self-reliant development, within natural resource constraints;
- ... development should not degrade environmental quality, nor should it reduce
productivity in the long run; Tolba, 1987
- ... health control, appropriate technologies, food self-reliance, clean water and shelter
for all;
- people-centred initiatives...; human beings, in other words, are the resources in the
concept.
In the narrowest sense, global sustainability means the indefinite survival of the human
species across all the regions of the world .... The broadest sense of global
Brown et al., 1987
sustainability includes the persistence of all components of the biosphere, even those
with no apparent benefit to humanity.
Any definition of sustainability suitable as a guide to agricultural practice must
recognize the need for enhancement of productivity to meet the increased demands Ruttan, 1988
created by growing populations and rising incomes.
Sustainable agriculture must be ecologically sound, economically viable, socially just,
Goldman, 1995
and culturally appropriate.
Consultative Group on
Sustainability should involve the successful management of resources for agriculture to
International Agricultural
satisfy changing human needs while maintaining or enhancing the quality of the
Research, 1989; reported by
environment and conserving natural resources
Goldman, 1995
Sustainable Agriculture comprises "...management procedures that work with natural
processes to conserve all resources, minimize waste and environmental impact, prevent
MacRae et al., 1989
problems and promote agro-ecosystem resilience, self-regulation, evolution and
sustained production for the nourishment and fulfilment of all".
We define sustainability as the capacity of a system to maintain output at a level
approximately equal to or greater than its historical average, with the approximation
determined by its historical level of variability. Hence, a sustainable system is one with Lynam and Herdt, 1989
a non-negative trend in measured output; a technology adds to system sustainability if
it increases the slope of the trend line.
...sustainable agriculture attempts to mimic the key characteristics of a natural
Hauptli et al., 1990
ecosystem...
We define agricultural sustainability as the ability to maintain productivity, whether of
a field or farm or nation, in the face of stress or shock. A stress may be increasing
salinity, erosion, or debt; ... a frequent, sometimes continuous, relatively small, Conway and Barbier, 1990
predictable force having a large cumulative effect .... [A shock is] a force that was
relatively large and unpredictable.
We take development to be a vector of desirable social objectives... [which] might
include: increases in real income per capita; improvements in health and nutritional Barbier et al., 1990
status; educational achievement; access to resources; a 'fairer' distribution of income;
increases in basic freedoms .... Sustainable development is a situation in which the
development vector does not decrease over time.... [There is also a] set of minimum

8
conditions for development to be sustainable .... based on the requirement that the
natural capital stock should not decrease over time.
For a farm to be sustainable, it must produce adequate amounts of high-quality food,
protect its resources and be both environmentally safe and profitable. Instead of
depending on purchased materials such as fertilizers, a sustainable farm relies as much
as possible on beneficial natural processes and renewable resources drawn from the Reganold et al., 1990
farm itself.
The management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of
technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and
Food and Agriculture
continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such
Organization of the United
development (in agriculture, forestry and fishing etc.) conserves land, water, plant and
Nations (FAO), 1991
animal genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technically appropriate,
economically viable and socially acceptable.
A sustainable process is one that can be maintained without interruption, weakening, or
loss of valued qualities. Sustainability is a necessary and sufficient condition for a Daily and Ehrlich, 1992
population to be at or below any carrying capacity
An average definition would include such elements as soil fertility and productivity
(rotations, integrated pest management and biological control, tillage methods, crop
sequences), controlling pesticide and fertilizer pollution, management strategies
(choice of hybrids and varieties, low cost inputs, etc.), human needs (demands for Farshad and Zinck, 1993
basic food and fibres), economic viability, social acceptability, ecological soundness,
time span (long term as opposed to short term profitability), and philosophical ethics
(implying satisfaction of spiritual and material goals of mankind)
(1) Sustainability refers to the qualitative and quantitative continuity in the use of a
resource. As a general concept, it may be applied to development, of which agriculture
may be only one of the components.
(2) Sustainable agriculture is dynamic because it is coupled with both land use, which
reflects the changing needs of population, and world economy.
(3) Sustainability implies a state of equilibrium between human activities as influenced
by social behaviour, acquired knowledge and applied technology, on the one hand and
the food production resources on the other. Most renewable natural resources are
Farshad and Zinck, 1993
sustainable before human intervention.
(4) Sustainability does not only mean feeding the present and future population, but
also requires an improved infrastructure and a stable economy. Equitability, being a
measure of how welfared the human beneficiaries of a system are, is one of the major
issues in sustainability.
(5) Sustainable agriculture entails that the food production resources (soil, water, biota,
etc.) be properly managed so that the applied practices do not cause degradation and/or
pollution.
Sustainable agriculture in developing countries implies: 1) Intensive farming, thus
increasing land use efficiency and productivity through diversified cropping patterns,
such as intercropping, mixed cropping and multiple cropping; 2) Maximum use of
internal resources and balanced use of external resources. Balanced use of external
inputs means that the use of chemical fertilizers should be based on soil nutrient status,
dosage of pesticides use should refer to recommended dosages of pesticides for Bowers, 1995
specific pests or diseases, and the use of irrigation water should be based on the water
demand of different crops and the availability of water resources; 3) Profitable and
efficient production, with an emphasis on increased production, per capita products and
net farm income; 4) The inherent capacity of soil and water resources that support
agricultural production are maintained or improved over time; and 5) A greater
productive use of local knowledge and practices, and enhanced innovation and
application of resource conservation technologies.
Sustainable agriculture has been described as an umbrella term encompassing several
ideological approaches to agriculture (Gips, 1988) including organic farming,
Hansen, 1996; reported by
biological agriculture, alternative agriculture, ecological agriculture, low-input
Goldman, 1995
agriculture, biodynamic agriculture, regenerative agriculture, permaculture and agro-
ecology
Szakál classified the definitions into four main groups: a group emphasizing the
maintenance of human well-being, in a way that the situation of future generations will Szakal, 1998; reported by Feher
not be worse than that of present generation, a group with concepts built on the and Beke, 2013
survival of the human race, a group with concepts built on the flexibility of producing
systems, and finally the group of non-economic concepts, whose major role is to

9
preserve cultural heritage and communities and maintain the diversity of the ecological
system.
Sustainable agriculture is multi-functional within landscapes and economies-it
produces food and other goods for farm families and markets, but it also contributes to
a range of public goods, such as clean water, wildlife, carbon sequestration in soils,
Pretty and Hine, 2000
flood protection, and landscape quality. It delivers many unique non-food functions
that cannot be produced by other sectors (e.g. on-farm biodiversity, urban to rural
migration, social cohesion).
Sustainability is defined by seven general attributes of NRMS [natural resource
management systems]: (a) productivity, (b) stability, (c) reliability (d) resilience, (e) López-Ridaura et al., 2002
adaptability; (f) equity; (g) self-reliance (self-empowerment).
Sustainable agriculture (a) conserves the resources on which
it depends; (b) restricts itself to a minimum input of production means, which do not
have their origin in the same farming system; (c) controls pests and diseases by internal Buchs, 2003
regulation processes as far as possible; (d) provides natural resources with the ability to
recover from disturbances through cultivation means and harvesting by processes of
natural succession.
Sustainable Agriculture adopts productive, competitive and efficient production
practices, while protecting and improving the natural environment and the global Hani et al., 2003
ecosystem, as well as the socio-economic conditions of local communities.
...sustainable agriculture is viewed as low-input and regenerative, which makes better
use of a farm’s internal resources through incorporation of natural processes into
agricultural production and greater use of improved knowledge and practices. It uses Rasul and Thapa, 2004
external and non-renewable inputs to the extent that these are deficient in the natural
environment.
Sustainable agriculture is an integrated system of plant and animal production practices
having a site specific application that will over the long term
-Satisfy human food and fiber needs;
-Enhance environmental quality; Horne and McDermott, 2005
-Promote efficient use of renewable resources;
-Sustain the economic vitality of farm operations; and
-Enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.
...it is generally agreed that sustainable agriculture must satisfy economic, social and
environmental objectives. Sustainable agriculture must achieve productivity in Swaminathan, 2006
perpetuity without accompanying ecologic and social harm.
...agricultural sustainability should be viewed from three alternative perspectives:
Bos et al., 2007
people, planet and profit.
...agricultural sustainability centre on the need to develop agricultural technologies and
practices that: (i) do not have adverse effects on the environment, (ii) are accessible to
Pretty, 2008
and effective for farmers, and (iii) lead to both improvements in food productivity and
have positive side effects on environmental goods and services.
...the best approach to analysing agricultural sustainability is to assess it through the
Pretty et al., 2008
lens of economic growth, environmental protection and social progress.
Sustainable agriculture and rural development seeks an appropriate balance between
food self-sufficiency and food self-reliance; employment and income generation in
Guttenstein et al., 2010
rural areas, particularly to eradicate poverty; and natural resource conservation and
environmental protection.
...activity that permanently satisfies a given set of conditions for an indefinite period of
time (Hansen, 1996). These conditions are related to the multidimensional character
inherent in the concept of sustainable development, which requires this activity to be Gómez-Limón and Sanchez-
sustainable from the triple perspective of economics (profitable operation), social Fernandez, 2010
justice (fair and equitable distribution of the wealth it generates) and environmental
friendliness (compatible with the maintenance of natural ecosystems).
...about the definition of "sustainable agriculture" as an activity that permanently
satisfies a given set of conditions for an indefinite period of time. These conditions are
highly congruent to the multidimensional attributes inherent in the concept of Roy and Chan, 2012
sustainable development, highlighting ecological stability, economic viability and
socially fair agricultural systems.
Sustainability is a "contextual concept". But in general, it means:
Chan et al., 2013
1. Maintain a high yield and productivity of rice that ensure economic viability;

10
 2. Less ecologically degrading production systems with special emphasis on the
preservation and improvement of the natural resources;
3. Signify the quality of producers’ life in terms of adequate access to
information, education, market and decision-making.
An integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific
application that will, over the long term, satisfy human food and fiber needs; enhance
environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural Definition by United States
economy depends; make the most efficient use of non-renewable resources and on- Congress; reported by Feher
farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls; and Beke, 2013
sustain the economic viability of farm operations; and enhance the quality of life for
farmers and society as a whole.
Need to safeguard agricultural products, while protecting and improving the natural
Frater and Franks, 2013
environment and social/economic conditions of local communities.
...it is generally agreed that sustainable agriculture must satisfy economic, social and
environmental objectives. Sustainable agriculture must achieve productivity in Van Pham and Smith, 2014
perpetuity without accompanying ecologic and social harm.
Sustainable agricultural systems are those that aim to make the best use of
Van Pham and Smith, 2014
environmental goods and services while not damaging these assets.
Sustainable agriculture arises as alternatives approach to conventional agriculture,
which including the use of on-farm or locally available resources, reduced use of
synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, increased use of crop rotations and organic Waney et al., 2014
materials as soil ameliorates, diversification of crop and animal species and reduced
stocking rates.
The core concept in defining agricultural sustainability is multidimensionality and so
sustainability of agriculture is based on the economic, ecological and social Jane Dillon et al., 2015
dimensions.
The sustainability of agricultural system can be evaluated in terms of its ability to
maintain certain well-defined level of performance over time, and enhance the same
Chand et al., 2015
through link-ages with other systems without damaging the ecological integrity of the
system.
Integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site specific
application that will, over the long term: (a) satisfy human food and fiber needs; (b)
enhance environmental quality; (c) make efficient use of non-renewable resources and
Velten et al., 2015
on-farm resources and integrate appropriate natural biological cycles and controls; (d)
sustain the economic viability of farm operations; and (e) enhance the quality of life
for farmers and society as a whole.
Sustainable agriculture is defined using the taxonomy of ‘‘levels’’ of practices from a
spectrum supporting socio-ecologically sustainable food systems. The levels
instrumental to this analysis are: improving system efficiency to reduce the use of
inputs (L1), substituting more sustainable inputs and practices into farming systems
(L2), redesigning systems based on ecological principles (L3: agro-ecology), and re-
De Longe et al., 2016
establishing connections between producers and consumers to support a socio-
ecological transformation of the food system (L4: social dimensions of agro-ecology).
A fifth level of sustainable agriculture describes the establishment of an equitable,
participatory, and just food system that is built upon the farm-scale practices of L3 and
the food relationships supported by L4.

As previously discussed, sustainability in agricultural systems is viewed as a prerequisite for

transition to sustainable development at the global level. Despite general consensus as to its
relevance, there is no agreement with regard to the definition of sustainability in agriculture; as
highlighted earlier, this is partly because it is a derivative of a range of "alternative" agricultures
that includes organic, regenerative, low-input and ecological agriculture (Lockeretz, 1988). The
concept of sustainable agriculture encompasses different aspects of agriculture in different
regional and country contexts (Zhen and Routray, 2003). A review of the definitions of
sustainable agriculture, however, reveals some agreement and commonalities on the concept.
Most of the definitions, for example, take into account the three pillars of sustainability –
environmental, social and economic. Table 3 shows the multi-dimensional approach developed
in FAO (1991) with a view to encapsulating it adequately: "The management and conservation
of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological and institutional change in

11
such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for present
and future generations. Such development (in agriculture, forestry and fishing etc.) conserves
land, water, plant and animal genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technically
appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable".
The three-pillar approach is currently the most comprehensive in terms of defining sustainable
agriculture, a fact emphasized in various studies. An evaluation of the definitions given in Table
3 shows that the FAO (1991) definition is the most appropriate, and hence suitable for
identifying and designing agricultural sustainability indicators.

3.The main principles and characteristics of agricultural sustainability

According to Pretty (1996), sustainable agriculture is any system of food or fibre production
that systematically seeks the following goals:
i. incorporation of natural processes such as nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixing and
pest/predator relationships into the agricultural production process;
ii. minimum use of off-farm, external and non-renewable inputs;
iii. equitable access to productive resources and opportunities, and progress towards
socially just forms of agriculture;
iv. maximum self-reliance among farmers and rural people;
v. long-term sustainability of production levels; and
vi. profitable and efficient production, with an emphasis on integrated farm management
and the conservation of soil, water, energy and biological resources.
But in order to put the concept of sustainability into practice, it must be understood holistically.
Rasure (2010), drawing on the recommendations of Swaminathan (1999), described 14 major
dimensions of sustainable agriculture that cover the multi-dimensional aspects of sustainability:
technological appropriateness, economic feasibility, economic viability, environmental
soundness, temporal stability, efficiency of resource use, local adaptability, social acceptability,
political acceptability, administrative manageability, cultural desirability, equity and
productivity.
Lockeretz (1988) sets out the following physical and biological parameters for sustainable
agriculture:
i. diversity of crop species;
ii. selection of crops and livestock that are adapted to a particular environment;
iii. preference for farm-generated resources rather than purchased inputs;
iv. tightening of nutrient cycles to minimize nutrient losses;
v. livestock housed and grazed at low densities;
vi. optimum storage of nutrients in the soil;
vii. maintenance of protective cover on the soil;
viii. rotations that include deep-rooted crops, and control of weeds;
ix. use of soluble inorganic fertilizer; and
x. use of pesticides for crop protection only as a last resort.
Pretty (1996) and Rasure (2010) recommend the following goals and parameters of sustainable
agriculture:

12
 o Environmental soundness. Producers create and sustain cultivated landscapes that are
complex, diverse and balanced biological systems, and implement practices that
conserve and restore resources.
o Animal management. While being raised, animals are allowed to engage in the natural
behaviours important to their well-being, and are harvested in ways that minimize stress
to the animals and the environment.
o Economic viability. Producers operate within a framework of sound business planning
and pursue integrated and proactive approaches to marketing and sales.
o Social justice. Producers and their employees receive fair and reasonable compensation,
and work in a safe and respectful environment.
The fundamental principles for agricultural sustainability in developing countries as
summarized by Zhen and Routray (2003) and Pretty (2008) are:
i. optimum land-use efficiency and productivity;
ii. maximum use of internal resources, and minimal use of non-renewable resources;
iii. profitable and efficient production, with an emphasis on maximum net farm income;
iv. maintenance of natural resources that support agricultural production; and
v. maximum use of locally appropriate farming practices and natural resource-
conservation strategies.
Appropriate principles and indicators of sustainable agriculture in a country or region can hence
be found in the following dimensions (Saifi and Drake, 2008):
i. value system and ethics;
ii. traditional agriculture;
iii. demand for food;
iv. technological development;
v. energy and biomass;
vi. on-farm natural resources;
vii. off-farm natural resources;
viii. degradation of ecological systems and the environment;
ix. food safety and other health considerations;
x. food security and regional distribution; and
xi. farm economy.
Study of the sustainability issues in the above dimensions for a particular country or region and
consideration of the relationships between them should enable us to identify a limited number
of reasonable principles for sustainable agriculture. The eleven dimensions above are relevant
to sustainability in most agricultural systems, but they will vary with respect to different
societies, different periods of development in a given society and within communities in relation
to nutrient circulation and local ecological systems. Certain principles may be valid for a
number of communities and societies, and also relevant to different dimensions: the integration
of crop and animal production is an example. Sustainable agricultural development, however,
cannot be based on one or some of the principles because there will be conflict and
reinforcement between them, even in a particular country or region.

13
4. Explaining the need for monitoring and measuring of agricultural
sustainability
Academic, scientific and policy-making communities have focused their attention in recent
years on the concepts of the “sustainable environment” and “sustainable development” (Zhen
and Routray, 2003; and others). This has been accompanied by attempts to develop practical
systems for measuring sustainability in the different systems of farming, cropping and livestock
raising on which humanity depends for subsistence. Zhen and Routray (2003) urge agricultural
researchers to: i) recognize the importance of sustainability in agricultural systems; ii) devise
ways of measuring sustainability; and iii) examine empirically the sustainability of some well-
defined cropping or farming systems and develop methods to measure it.
In any study of sustainable agriculture, in other words, the question arises as to how agricultural
sustainability can be measured. David (1989), Webster (1999) and Hayati et al. (2010) argue
that the concept of sustainability is a "social construct"; Webster (1997) observes that it had yet
to be made operational. Precise measurement of sustainability is impossible because it is a
dynamic concept and site-specific (Ikerd, 1993) and because what is defined as "sustainable"
depends to some extent on the perspectives of the analysts (Webster, 1999). But even if precise
measurement of sustainable agriculture is not possible, "... when specific parameters or criteria
are selected, it is possible to say whether certain trends are steady, going up or going down... "
(Hayati et al., 2010).
Agricultural practices that erode soil, destroy the habitats of insect predators and cut trees down
without replacing them can be considered "unsustainable"; sustainable systems conserve these
resources. According to Altieri (1995), farmers can improve the biological stability and
resilience of their systems by choosing suitable crops, rotating them, growing a mixture of crops
and irrigating, mulching and manuring the land. Lynam and Herdt (1989) observe that
sustainability can be measured by examining changes in yields and total factor productivity.
Beus and Dunlap (1994) consider that practices such as the use of pesticides and inorganic
fertilizers and maintenance of diversity are features of sustainable agriculture; Hayati et al.
(2010) note that for sustainable agriculture, a major requirement is sustainable management of
land and water resources.
Nonetheless, sustainability assessments are a significant aid to this process, and a growing
number of sustainability assessment tools and frameworks have been developed to support
decision-making in agriculture (Gasparatos 2010; Marchand et al., 2014). But few of them
consider the holistic indicators that must be applied at the global level to enable measurement
and monitoring of agricultural sustainability in different countries. And because they are
context-specific, these tools and frameworks do not provide a robust basis for comparing
countries in terms of agricultural sustainability. Hence the recommendation is to introduce a set
of indicators that enables countries to evaluate the sustainability of their own agricultural sector
and subsequently compare their status with other countries. Such sets of indicators should be
cost-effective, and the countries with different agricultural systems such as cropping and
livestock raising should be able to implement them. To achieve this, policymakers will need
accurate, transparent and up-to-date information on crop and livestock production, adoption of
new technologies, land degradation, fertilizer and pesticide use, availability of credit and
machinery, water use and efficiency, labour, agrochemicals, diversity of crop and animal

14
breeds, trade, end-of-year stocks, non-food uses of crops, food prices, post-harvest food losses
and waste (United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2014).
The development of such indicators has value in several respects: i) in promoting and
developing discussion of sustainable agriculture in practice by assessing actual farms in terms
of input use; ii) in enhancing understanding of the nature of indicators and the need for them,
and considering the practical issues relating to their design and validation; and iii) in showing
how the indicators can advance discussion of organic and conventional agriculture in relation
to policies for agricultural sustainability. The experience of constructing a holistic set of global
indicators for monitoring and measuring agricultural sustainability will highlight the potential
and limitations of the approach and show where further work is worthwhile (Rigby et al., 2001).
Sustainability indicators are increasingly seen as important tools in the assessment and
implementation of sustainable farming systems, and numerous lists and matrixes of suggested
indicators already exist (Hayati et al., 2010; Zhen and Routray, 2003).

5. Terminology used in assessing agricultural sustainability

Sustainable agriculture is a time-specific and location-specific concept, so any assessment of
sustainability must be linked to the context in which a farming system operates. The current
problem in the assessment of farming systems is obtaining and applying acceptable spatial and
temporal indicators to find out whether a particular practice is sustainable or not. This
challenging problem arises in part because sustainability normally involves at least three
independent but interrelated dimensions – ecological, economic and social. Sustainability in
these dimensions may be difficult to reconcile because each will have a different time-scale and
perspective in each context (Zhen and Routray, 2003).

Components for measuring Agricultural sustainability

Various approaches to measuring agricultural sustainability have been proposed: these can, for
simplicity, be classified into three groups – social, economic and ecological – as shown in
Table 4 (Hayati et al., 2010, with some revision).
Table 4: Three components of agricultural sustainability
Component Item Sources

Education levels of household members Herzog and Gotsch, 1998; von Cauwenbergh et
al., 2007
Housing facilities Herzog and Gotsch, 1998
Work/study Herzog and Gotsch, 1998
Nutritional and health status of family Herzog and Gotsch, 1998; Rasul and Thapa,
members 2003; von Cauwenbergh et al., 2007
Ingels et al., 1997; Pannell and Glenn, 2000;
Improved decision-making
Horrigan et al., 2002; Rasul and Thapa, 2003
Social

Karami, 1995; Ingels et al., 1997; Rezaei

Improved quality of rural life Moghaddam, 1997; Norman et al., 1998; Lyson,
1998; von Cauwenbergh et al., 2007
Ingels et al., 1997; von Cauwenbergh et al.,
Working and living conditions
2007
Becker, 1997; Ingels et al., 1997; von
Participation/social capital
Cauwenbergh et al., 2007
Becker, 1997; Rigby et al., 2001; Rasul and
Social equity
Thapa (2003); Rasul and Thapa, 2004
Labour safety Castellini et al., 2012

15
Component Item Sources
Labour per unit of poultry production Castellini et al., 2012
Average of crop production Castellini et al., 2012
Expenses for input Nambiar et al., 2001; Rasul and Thapa, 2003
Off-farm monetary income Becker, 1997; Herzog and Gotsch, 1998
Herzog and Gotsch, 1998; von Cauwenbergh et
Net income from poultry production systems
al., 2007; Castellini et al., 2012
Herzog and Gotsch, 1998); Pannell and Glenn,
Monetary income from farm 2000; Nijkamp and Vreeker, 2000; von
Cauwenbergh et al., 2007
Becker, 1997; Herzog and Gotsch, 1998;
Economic efficiency Nijkamp and Vreeker, 2000; von Cauwenbergh
et al., 2007
Economic

Karami, 1995; Herzog and Gotsch, 1998;

Lyson, 1998; Smith and McDonald, 1997;
Profitability Comer et al., 1999; Pannell and Glenn, 2000;
Rigby et al., 2001; Koeijer et al., 2002; Rasul
and Thapa, 2003; Gafsi et al., 2006
Salaries paid to farm workers Herzog and Gotsch, 1998
Net income Castellini et al., 2012
Herzog and Gotsch, 1998; Rasul and Thapa,
Employment opportunities
2003
Smith and McDonald, 1997; von Cauwenbergh
Market availability
et al., 2007
Karami, 1995; Nijkamp and Vreeker, 2000; von
Land ownership
Cauwenbergh et al., 2007
Final weight at slaughter, feed conservation
ratio, mortality rate, revenue and labour per Castellini et al., 2012
production unit

16
Component Item Sources
Hayati, 1995; Becker, 1997; Ingels et al., 1997;
Bouma and Droogers, 1998; Pannell and Glenn,
Soil management 2000; Sands and Podmore, 2000; Nambiar et
al., 2001; Horrigan et al., 2002; Rasul and
Thapa, 2003; von Cauwenbergh et al., 2007
Hayati, 1995; Ingels et al., 1997; Gafsi et al.,
Improved management of water resources
2006; von Cauwenbergh et al., 2007
Hayati, 1995; Rezaei Moghaddam, 1997; Ingels
Usage of pesticides, herbicides and
et al., 1997; Norman et al., 1998; Pannell and
fungicides
Glenn, 2000; Rasul and Thapa, 2004
Saltiel et al., 1994; Hayati, 1995; Norman et al.,
Usage of animal and plant-based manures
1998
Senanayake, 1991; Saltiel et al., 1994; Hayati,
Usage of green manures
1995
Physical inputs and efficient use of inputs Ingels et al., 1997; Herzog and Gotsch, 1998
Herzog and Gotsch, 1998; Rasul and Thapa,
Physical yield
2003
Senanayake, 1991; Saltiel et al., 1994; Ingels et
al., 1997; Comer et al., 1999; Praneetvatakul et
Crop diversification
al., 2001; Nambiar et al., 2001; Horrigan et al.,
2002; Rasul and Thapa, 2003
Use of alternative crop Saltiel et al., 1994; Rasul and Thapa, 200)
Fat content, fatty acids, and total
Castellini et al., 2012
antioxidants
Usage of fallow system Saltiel et al., 1994
Ecological

Saltiel et al., 1994; Hayati, 1995; Comer et al.,

Crop rotation 1999; Horrigan et al., 2002; Rasul and Thapa,
2003
Nijkamp and Vreeker, 2000; Rasul and Thapa,
Cropping pattern
2003; Rasul and Thapa, 2004
Smith and McDonald, 1997; von Cauwenbergh
Trend of change in climate
et al., 2007
Hayati, 1995; Rezaei Moghaddam, 1997; Ingels
Usage of chemical fertilizer
et al., 1997
Hayati, 1995; Ingels et al., 1997; Comer et al.,
Conservation tillage: none or minimum
1999; Horrigan et al., 2002
Hayati, 1995; Ingels et al., 1997; Rasul and
Erosion control Thapa, 2003; Gafsi et al., 2006; von
Cauwenbergh et al., 2007
Microbial biomass in soil Senanayake, 1991; Pannell and Glenn, 2000
Senanayake, 1991; Ingels et al., 1997; Norman
Energy et al., 1998; Nambiar et al., 2001; von
Cauwenbergh et al., 2007
Ingels et al., 1997; Norman et al., 1998; Comer
Cover crop/mulch et al., 1999; Horrigan et al., 2002; Rasul and
Thapa, 2003
Pannell and Glenn, 2000; Sands and Podmore,
Depth of water table
2000; von Cauwenbergh et al., 2007
Protein level of crops Pannell and Glenn, 2000
Comer et al., 1999; Praneetvatakul et al., 2001;
Integrated pest management
Horrigan et al., 2002; Rasul and Thapa, 2003
Climate change, land use, ecotoxicity, fossil
Castellini et al., 2012
fuels and ecological footprint

17
Terminologies
Indicator-based tools for assessing sustainability are generally structured on the basis of three
or four hierarchical levels (see Figure 2). A diversity of terminology, however, is used to define
the various levels (Bausch et al., 2014; Bélanger et al., 2012; De Olde et al., 2016).
Figure 2. Hierarchical levels in sustainability assessment according to SAFA and
terminology used in other sustainability assessment studies

Example Other terminology

Aspect (Van calker et al., 2007)

Environment Domain (Bausch et al., 2014)
Dimension Pillar (Van Cauwenbergh et al., 2007)

Component (Belanger et al., 2012)

Theme Issue (De Boer & Comelissen, 2002)
Materials and Energy Attribute (Van calker et al., 2007)
Principle (Van Cauwenbergh et al.,
2007)
Impact category (Haas et al., 2000)
Criterion (Van Cauwenbergh et al.,
2007(
Sub-theme
Energy use

Energy consumption in
Parameter (Guerci et al., 2013)
Indicator kWh per year

Rigby et al. (2001) and Gallopin (1997) survey a range of literature in which environmental
indicators were identified as a variable, a parameter, a statistical measure, a proxy, a value, a
meter or measuring instrument, a fraction, an index, a piece of information, a single quantity,
an empirical model and a sign. Moxey (1998) argues that there was no general agreement as to
the design and use of what he called "agro-environmental indicators" because they had to
"... address interactions of both socio-economic and environmental factors. Consequently, the
debate is inevitably complicated".
In this context FAO (2013) provides a structure for developing indicators i.e. sustainability
assessment of food and agriculture systems (SAFA). At the intermediate level, universal
sustainability goals are translated into themes and in some cases more explicit sub-themes.
Indicators are measurable variables for evaluating the sustainability in any theme or sub-theme.

6. Levels of agricultural sustainability

The sustainability of agriculture is measured and monitored at different levels. The literature
shows, for example, actions carried out at the farm, regional and national levels, but there are
fewer studies about measuring and monitoring sustainability in agriculture at the global level.
Marchand et al. (2014) report that sustainability assessments were a significant aid in the
process; Pope et al. (2004) stated that a growing number of sustainability assessment tools and
frameworks had been developed to support decision-making in the agriculture sector. Based on
Binder et al. (2010) this situation has led to the development of different tools that range from
the farm level to applications at the international level.
These sources focused on different levels of analysis and consequently introduced various
sustainability indicators based on their objectives and intellectual domain. Table 6 summarizes
the level of analysis and the indices used in different studies.

18
Various factors can influence the choice of tool. This literature review shows that the variation
among tools enables us to identify some of these factors. The current choice of assessment tool
by researchers and governments, for example, usually depends on data, time, and budgetary
constraints (Marchand et al., 2014).
The use of integrated, holistic and indicator-based global sustainability measurement tools is
important at the farm level because it relates to the broader goal of integrating sustainability
concepts such as ecological, economic and social issues into decision-making (Pope, 2006).
The holistic and global characteristics of such tools means that the framework for measuring
and monitoring the sustainability of agriculture will be applicable at the global level. The use
of the indicators will be determined by operational choices such as whether they are treated
individually, as part of a weighted set, or combined into a composite index (Farrell and Hart,
1998). The farm-level characteristic concerns the use of farm-level data, farmers as target
groups and the farm as the system to be evaluated: in this case the individual farmer makes the
strategic and operational management decisions that influence farm sustainability (Marchand
et al., 2014).
Pretty (1995) argues: “At the farm level, it is possible for actors to weigh up, trade off and agree
on these criteria for measuring trends in sustainability. But as we move to high levels of the
hierarchy, to regional, national and international levels, it becomes increasingly difficult to do
this in any meaningful way.” He went on to say that when specific parameters or criteria were
selected, it was possible to say whether certain trends were steady, going up, or going down. At
the farm level, for example, practices that cause soil erosion can be considered more
unsustainable than those that conserve soil. Practices that remove the habitats of insect predators
or kill them directly are more unsustainable than those that do not. Forming a group as a forum
for collective action is likely to be more sustainable than individuals trying to act alone.
Indicators of agricultural sustainability can generally be applied at several levels according to
the scale at which evaluations are made (see Table 5). Apart from different scales of application,
indicators may also differ in the directness of measurement and the timescale over which they
are applied. Measurement, for example, may vary from a direct measure such as soil loss
through a proxy measure such as soil cover to an indirect measure such as density of livestock.
Similarly, the timescale of operation may vary from a leading indicator such as clearing of steep
lands to a concurrent indicator such as inappropriate land management to a lagging indicator
such as abandonment of land (Smith and McDonald, 1997).

19
Table 5. Levels of analysis in sustainability assessments
Level of
Typical characteristics of sustainability Typical determinants
assessment
Productive crops and animals; Soil and water management; biological control
Field conservation of soil and water; low level of pests; use of organic manures; fertilizers,
of crop pests and animal diseases pesticides, crop varieties and animal breeds
Awareness among farmers; economic and
Farm social needs satisfied; viable production Access to knowledge, inputs and markets
systems
Public awareness; sound development of Policies for agricultural development;
Country agro-ecological potential; conservation of population pressure; agricultural education,
resources research and extension
Quality of natural environment; human
welfare and equity mechanisms; Control of pollution; climate stability; terms
World
international agricultural research and of trade; distribution
development
Source: Smith and Mcdonald (1997).

Izac and Swift (1994) note that agricultural systems may be defined at different spatial scales
ranging from the crop field, where human influence may be regarded as largely external to the
biological system, to the regional landscape, where human activities are part of the system.
They also stated: "... there is no ‘correct' definition of agro-ecosystems since the research and
management objectives determine the correctness.” Each level is relevant to sustainability in
some respect: our purpose is to identify the levels most relevant to the assessment of
sustainability in agricultural systems. A significant criterion in this respect is to identify the
levels at which there is significant integration of ecological, economic and social factors. In
practice the scales and their spatial boundaries must be directly relevant to the activities and
perceptions of farmers: in this context OECD (2001) reports that "scale" or "level of analysis"
is a separate principle in the measurement and monitoring of agricultural sustainability; Von
Wiren-Lehr (2001) and Ness et al. (2010) make similar observations. The need for more
granular scales of assessment arises from differences in socio-economic and environmental
conditions (Dantsis et al., 2010): national and international indicators, for example, are often
inapplicable to the local and household scales (Van Cauwenbergh et al., 2007; Van Pham and
Smith, 2014).
On the other hand, the farm is the basic economic unit in the hierarchy of agricultural systems:
even though the use of a single field, for example, may be uneconomic or unsustainable, the
farm may remain economically viable. Conversely, fields on a farm may do well agronomically,
but poorly in economic terms as a result of low commodity prices or high production costs. To
be socio-economically viable, the economic and social needs of the farmer must be met, and
the farmer must have access to information related to management processes, production inputs
and commodity markets. Sustainability indicators at the farm scale must therefore include
profitability, economic uncertainty, availability of inputs and markets, skills and information
available to the farmer, the farmer's planning capacity and incentives to manage land
sustainably. The latter may include best management practice guidelines, off-farm income and
access to credit, government assistance and land tenure (Smith and Mcdonald, 1997). At the
regional, national and international scales, macroeconomic constraints – especially economic
policy – determine the focus of national economies and eventually the ability of a nation’s
agricultural system to feed its population (Lowrance et al., 1986; Smith and McDonald, 1997).

7. Agricultural sustainability measurement indices

To enable a transition to sustainable production, various tools have been developed to provide
insights into the sustainability of agricultural systems (Binder et al., 2010; Schader et al., 2014;

20
De Olde et al., 2016). Measurement and monitoring tools for sustainability vary widely in
geographical and sectoral coverage, target groups such as farmers or policy-makers, selection
of indicators, aggregation and weighting method, and the time required for implementation
(Marchand et al., 2014; Schader et al., 2014). Many observers stress the importance of
integrating environmental, economic and social themes in sustainability measurement tools, but
environmental themes and tools generally receive more attention (De Olde et al., 2016; Binder
et al., 2010; Finkbeiner et al., 2010; Lebacq et al., 2013; Marta-Costa and Silva, 2013; Schader
et al., 2014).
In this regard, De Olde et al. (2016) tries to compare four farm-level sustainability measurement
indices: response-inducing sustainability evaluation (RISE) (Häni et al., 2003), SAFA (FAO,
2013), public goods (PG) (Gerrard et al., 2012) and indicateurs de durabilité des exploitations
agricoles (IDEA; farm sustainability indicators) (Zahm et al., 2008). The PG tool focuses on
public goods instead of sustainability, but some consider it a suitable tool for assessing
sustainability because of its compliance with the selection criteria (in PG data are more
accessible) (Leach et al., 2013). The RISE, PG and IDEA indexes are adapted specifically for
measuring the sustainability of farms, whereas SAFA has broader scope in that it extends to
supply chains in agriculture, forestry and fisheries (De Olde et al., 2016).
A number of articles – Halberg et al. (2005), de Ridder et al. (2007), Binder et al. (2010),
Gasparatos (2010) and Singh et al. (2012) – review, analyse or categorize sustainability
assessment tools. Drawing on Marchand et al. (2014), Gasparatos (2010) categorizes
sustainability assessment tools into "families" of biophysical, monetary or indicator tools.
Binder et al. (2010) focus on indicator-based sustainability assessment tools in agriculture and
distinguish three types by spatial level – farm, region and degree of stakeholder participation:
i) top-down farm assessment methods; ii) top-down regional assessment methods with some
stakeholder participation; and iii) bottom-up transdisciplinary methods with full stakeholder
participation (Marchand et al., 2014).
Sustainability measurement indices differ in terms of starting point, objectives and assumptions
such as what is to be measured, how to measure it and which sustainability perspectives are
relevant and legitimate. These differences in basic features mean that the choice of index affects
the outcome of the evaluation (Marchand et al., 2014).
Some of these sustainability measurement indices are presented in Table 6 (De Olde et al.,
2016).

21
Table 6. Overview of indices
Suitable NW
Economic/
Measurement Peer Europe/
Index Name Reference environmental/ Sector
level rev. other
social
countries
European Analytical Framework for the
Bastian et al. (2007); Simoncini
1. AEMBAC Development of Local Agri- Landscape Yes Environmental Universal Yes/Yes
(2009)
Environmental Programmes
Agro-Environmental Sustainability Pacini et al. (2009); Pacini et al.
2. AESIS Farm Yes Environmental Universal Yes/No
Information System (2011)
3. Agro-Eco-Index Farm Yes Viglizzo et al. (2006) Environmental Universal No/No
4. ANCA Annual Nutrient Cycle Assessment Farm Yes Aarts et al. (2015) Environmental Dairy Yes/No
Economic,
5. APOIA- The System for Weighted Environmental
Farm Yes Rodrigues et al. (2010) environmental, Universal No/Yes
NOVORURAL Impact Assessment of Rural Activities
social
Economic,
6. ARBRE Arbre de l’Exploitation Agricole Durable Farm No Pervanchon (2004) environmental, Universal Yes/No
social
7. AUI Agrarumweltindikatoren Farm No www.blw.admin.ch Environmental Universal Yes/No
Economic,
8. Avibio AVIculture BIOlogique Farm, chain Yes Pottiez et al. (2012) environmental, Poultry Yes/No
social
Biodiversity Risk and Opportunity
9. BROA Lanscape No www.batbiodiversity.org/broa Environmental Universal Yes/Yes
Assessment
Economic,Environm
10. COSA Committee On Sustainability Assessment Farm Yes COSA (2013) Coffee andcacao No/Yes
ental,Social
Economic,Environm Fruit, arable,
11. Coteur et al. (2014) Farm Yes Coteur et al. (2014) Yes/No
ental,Social greenhouse
12. DairySAT Dairy Self-Assessment Tool Farm No www.dairysat.com.au Environmental Dairy Yes/No
Economic,
Plant,
13. Dantsis et al. (2010) - Farm, regional Yes Dantsis et al. (2010) environmental, Yes/No
production
social
www.cooperation-
agricole.asso.fr/sites/saf/guide/fiches/
14. DIAGE DIAgnostic Global d’Exploitation Farm No Environmental Universal Yes/No
methodes evaluationsysteme
individuelles/diage.aspx
DIAgnostic Liant Environnement et
15. DIALECTE Farm No http://dialecte.solagro.org/ Environmental Universal Yes/No
Contrat Territorial d’Exploitation
Diagnosticagri environnemental global www.solagro.org/site/imuser/014plaq
16. DIALOGUE Farm No Environmental Universal Yes/No
d’exploitation uette dialogue.pdf
DLG Zertifikat Nachhaltige
17. DLG Farm No www.nachhaltige-landwirtschaft.info Environmental Universal Yes/No
Landwirtschaft
Economic,Environm
18. DSI Dairyman Sustainability Index Farm Yes Elsaesser et al. (2015) Dairy Yes/Yes
ental,Social

22
 Economic,Environm
19. DSR Driving Force State Response Regional No OECD (2001) Universal Yes/Yes
ental,Social
Farm, product,
20. EF Ecological Footprint Yes Wackernagel et al. (1999) Environmental Universal Yes/Yes
local, regional
Environmental management for
21. EMA Farm Yes Lewis and Bardon (1998) Environmental Universal Yes/No
agriculture
22. EP Ecopoints Farm No www.oekopunkte.at Environmental Universal Yes/No
Economic,
23. FARMSMART - Farm Yes Tzilivakis and Lewis (2004) environmental, Universal Yes/No
social
Economic,
24. Field Print Calculator - Farm No www.fieldtomarket.org environmental, Arablefarming Yes/No
social
www.landbrugsinfo.dk/miljoe/natur-
og-
25. GA Green Accounts for Farms Farm No Environmental Universal Yes/Yes
arealforvaltning/tilskudsordninger/gro
enne-regnskaber
Economic,
Indicateur de Durabilité des Exploitations
26. IDEA Farm Yes Zahm et al. (2008) environmental, Universal Yes/Yes
Agricoles
social
www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/ Environmental,
27. IFSC Illinois Farm Farm No Universal No/No
13458 economic
Thiollet-Scholtus and Bockstaller Crop production,
28. INDIGO Sustainability Calculater Farm Yes Environmental Yes/No
(2014) viticulture
Economic,
Indicator of Sustainable Agricultural
29. ISAP Farm Yes Rigby et al. (2001) environmental, Horticulture Yes/No
Practice
social
Economic,
Kriteriensystem Nachhaltige
30. KSNL Farm No Breitschuh (2009) environmental, Universal Yes/No
Landwirtschaft
social
31. LCA Life Cycle Assessment Product Yes e.g. Haas et al. (2000) Environmental Universal Yes/Yes
Framework forAssessing the Economic,
López-Ridaura et al. (2002),
32. MESMIS Sustainability of Natural Resource Farm, local Yes environmental, Smallholder No/No
Speelman et al. (2007)
Management Systems social
Economic,
Farm, local,
33. MMF Multiscale Methodological Framework Yes Lopéz-Ridaura et al. (2005) environmental, Smallholder No/No
regional
social
Economic,
Monitoring Tool for Integrated Farm
34. MOTIFS Farm Yes Meul et al. (2008) environmental, Dairy Yes/No
Sustainability
social
Economic,
35. PG Public Goods Tool Farm Yes Gerrard et al. (2012) environmental, Universal Yes/Yes
social

23
 Economic,
36. RAD Réseau del’Agriculture Durable Farm Yes Le Rohellec and Mouchet (2008) environmental, Dairy Yes/No
social
www.nachhaltige-
37. REPRO Reproduction of Soil Fertility Farm No Environmental Universal Yes/No
landbewirtschaftung.de/repro/
Economic,
Response-Inducing Sustainability
38. RISE Farm Yes Häni et al. (2003) environmental, Universal Yes/Yes
Evaluation 2.0
social
Economic,
Sustainability Assessment of Food
39. SAFA Farm, chain Yes FAO (2013) environmental, Universal Yes/Yes
and Agriculture Systems
social
Farm, Economic,
Sustainability Assessment of Farming
40. SAFE landscape, Yes Van Cauwenbergh et al. (2007) environmental, Universal Yes/No
and the Environment
regional social
Economic,
41. SAI – SPA Farmer Self-Assessment 2.0 Farm No www.standardsmap.org/fsa environmental, Universal Yes/Yes
social
Swiss Agricultural Life Cycle Farm, product,
42. SALCA Yes Nemecek et al. (2011) Environmental Universal Yes/No
Assessment system
Economic,
43. SeeBalance - Product Yes Saling et al. (2005) environmental, Universal Yes/Yes
social
44. SLCA Social Life Cycle Assessment Product Yes Benoît and Mazijn (2009) Social Universal Yes/Yes
Economic,
Sustainability Monitoring and www.fibl.org/en/themes/smart- Dairy
45. SMART Farm No environmental, Yes/Yes
Assessment RouTine en.html
social
Economic,
Sustainability Flower Quick www.soilandmorefoundation.org/proj
46. SoilandMoreFlower Farm No environmental, Yes/Yes
Assessment ects/sustainability-flower
social
Economic,
www.triplehelix.com.au/documents/
47. SustainabilityDashboard - Farm No environmental, Yes/No
FarmSustainabilityDashboard.pdf
social
Economic,
48. van Calker et al. (2006) - Farm Yes van Calker et al. (2006) environmental, Yes/No
social

24
Criteria for selecting indicators
Selection of effective indicators is the key to the success of any monitoring programme (Zhen
and Routray, 2003). The choice must be indicators that are globally applicable, cost-effective,
comprehensive, realistic and comparable that can hence identify, measure and describe the
condition of sustainability. Zhen and Routray (2003) and Dale and Beyeler (2001) propose that
the criteria for selecting sustainability indicators should be: i) easily measurable; ii) sensitive to
stresses on the system; iii) responsive to stress in a predictable manner; iv) anticipatory, in that
they signify any impending change in the system; v) able to predict changes that can be averted
by management actions; vi) integrative, in that the full suite of indicators provides a measure
of coverage of gradients in different agricultural systems such as cropping, livestock and
pasture; vii) reliably responsive to natural disturbances, anthropogenic stresses and changes
over time; and viii) only slightly variable in response. Other criteria are discussed in the
literature on the selection of indicators (Braat, 1991).
To summarize: the aspects listed below should be taken into consideration in the selection of
indicators for assessing agricultural sustainability at the national level (Zhen and Routray,
2003).
i. relative availability of data representing the indicators;
ii. sensitivity to stresses on the system;
iii. existence of threshold values and guidelines;
iv. productivity;
v. integratability, and
vi. known response to disturbances, anthropogenic stresses and changes over time.
De Mey et al. (2011) report other criteria for choosing indicators of agricultural sustainability:
i. Attitude of model users – advisers and farmers – toward sustainability: "Values and
beliefs of the model users (advisers and farmers) regarding sustainability issues."
ii. Compatibility: "Extent to which the design and the proposed use of the tool is
compatible with the data systems and institutional structure of accountancy and
consultancy agencies."
iii. User-friendliness: "Extent to which the ISA-tool is flexible and easy to use. This is
related to the graphical design, ease of assessment, and calculation (automation), etc."
iv. Data availability: "Availability of data necessary for indicator calculation".
v. Transparency: "Transparency of the used model and data (design, generalizations,
etc.) and transparency on uncertainties of model-derived results."
vi. Correctness of data: "Correctness of the data that are used to calculate the indicators of
the ISA tool."
vii. Value in communication: "Use of Integrated sustainability assessment-tool in
discussion sessions and its ability to support discussion on sustainability. Both
communication aid of the model itself as communication through using it in farmer
groups are included."
viii. Complexity: "Degree of complexity of the integrated sustainability assessment tool."
ix. Organization of discussion sessions: "Practical organization of the discussion sessions
with farmers. Which aspects need to be considered to make the discussion sessions
more successful?"
x. Effectiveness: "Extent to which the integrated sustainability assessment tool is
perceived as being relevant to use and implement."
25
Binder et al. (2010) state that the selection of indicators is linked to the normative and systemic
aspects mentioned above. It should be based on the characteristics of the field, farm or region
and problems existing in the selected system. In general, the main criteria for the selection of
indicators should be: i) orientation to particular goals; ii) system representation; and iii) data
availability (Scholz and Tietje, 2002; Wiek and Binder, 2005; Zhen and Routray, 2003; Binder
et al., 2010).
Sala et al. (2015) consider the criteria for the selection of indicators from the perspectives of
ontology, epistemology and methodology. In terms of ontology, the criteria for selecting
indicators were: i) the subject of assessment; ii) the scope of measurement;
iii) comprehensiveness in terms of taking the three pillars (namely economy, environment and
society) into account and the level of integration among the pillars; iv) use of resources;
v) environmental effects and/or economic effects; vi) ability to address indirect inputs and
effects; vii) scenario development; and viii) system boundaries. The epistemology criteria
were: i) accounting versus change-orientation; and ii) ability to communicate with individual
stakeholders and groups of stakeholders. The methodology criteria were: i) analytical versus
procedural tools; ii) methods in terms of aggregation, system boundaries, data
inclusion, normalization and weighting and establishing whether mono-dimensional or multi-
dimensional; iii) rigour of the methods, strategies and techniques used to construct any index:
whether quantitative or qualitative, subjective or objective and with cardinal or ordinal metrics;
iv) availability, flexibility and transparency of data; and v) spatial and temporal issues (Sala et
al., 2015).
The SAFA (2013) recommendations for selecting sustainability monitoring indicators involve
consideration of:
i. default indicators, or their replacement;
ii. availability of information on the performance of the entity;
iii. budgetary constraints of the assessment; and
iv. the use of results, and the associated compliance review.
Neher (1992) observes that indicators were often selected on the basis of the availability of
techniques for obtaining measurements, the suitability of indicators for use in a single sampling
period and the interpretability of data.

8. Introducing indicators for measuring agricultural sustainability

Sustainable agriculture must be regarded as more than the sum of related principles and
theoretical issues. To facilitate decision-making, it is essential to study the actual state of the
complex and dynamic environment and to define the processes of change. Sustainable
agriculture can be described and measured by cost-benefit analysis, risk analysis, charts of
ecosystems and indicator systems (Feher and Beke, 2013). López-Ridaura et al. (2002) report
that sustainability is defined by seven general attributes of natural resource management
systems: productivity, stability, reliability, resilience, adaptability, equity and self-reliance or
self-empowerment. They also introduced indicators for these attributes of sustainability:
[Lopez-Ridaura et al. (2002) have combined three attributes (stability, reliability and
resilience) and used them as one attribute (stability)]
i. Productivity: yields, quality of products, cost/benefit ratio, economic return to labour.
ii. Stability: resilience and reliability, nutrient balance, erosion levels, biophysical
characteristics of soils such as compaction and percentage of organic matter, yield
trends, number of species grown, income per species, incidence of pests, diseases and

26
 weeds, and variation of input and output prices such as coefficients of variation of
input/output.
iii. Adaptability: adoption of new alternatives and/or farmers’ permanence in a system,
capacity-building activities, proportion of area with an adopted technology.
iv. Equity: initial investment costs and share of benefits by different farmers' groups.
v. Self-reliance: participation in the design, implementation and evaluation of
alternatives, degree of participation in decision-making, cost of external inputs, use of
external resources.
Rigby et al. (2001) also construct a farm-level sustainability index using data collected in a
survey of farmers and agricultural producers. Their indicators of farm-level sustainability were:
i. seed sourcing;
ii. soil fertility;
iii. pest and disease control;
iv. weed control; and
v. crop management
Their work supplemented the farm-level sustainability indicators of Tylor et al. (1993):
i. insect control;
ii. disease control;
iii. weed control;
iv. maintenance of soil fertility; and
v. control of soil erosion.
Rigby et al. (2001) and Gomez et al. (1996) construct farm-level indices of sustainability
covering six aspects: yield, profit, frequency of crop failure, soil depth, organic certification
and permanent ground cover.
Van Asseldonk et al. (2016) mentioned that adoption risk management strategies are important
in sustainability of European agriculture. In their study the risk management data (and other
additional indicators collected in the EU Framework 7 FLINT, Farm-Level Indicators for New
Topics in Policy Evaluation) were merged with the FADN (Farm Accountancy Data Network)
database. Indicators of risk management in this study were: crop insurance, livestock insurance,
building insurance, price contract, off-farm employment, off-farm investment and so on. In line
with this study that investigated the adoption of risk management strategies, Van der Meulen et
al. (2016) concentrated on the role of innovation to promote agricultural sustainability. These
scholars cited that innovation and adoption of innovation are considered key indicators of
competitiveness and sustainability. Furthermore, in this study the EU Framework 7 project
FLINT collected farm-level indicators on innovation and related aspects in nine EU Member
States. Consequently, in combination with data collected by the Farm Accountancy Data
Network (FADN), the FLINT data are used to obtain insight into different adoption rates and
determinants of adoption of five types of innovation in agriculture across Europe.
The five types of innovation indicators and one aggregated indicator distinguished in the dataset
are:
1. Product innovation that is new for the company within the last three years, but not new to the
market (product not new);
2. Product that is new to the market (product new);

27
3. Process innovation that is new for the company within the last three years, but not new for
the market (process not new);
4. Process innovation that is new for the company and new for the market (process new);
5. Market and organizational innovation (organizational);
6. Having one or more of the above-mentioned types of innovation (farms with innovations).
Bockstaller et al. (1997) consider the seven indicators of integrated arable farming systems
from a one-dimensional approach to agricultural sustainability: crop diversity, crop succession,
pesticides, nitrogen, phosphorus, organic matter and irrigation.
OECD (1997) uses a “driving force state response” framework to identify 13 “priority issues”,
for each of which several potential indicators were suggested for policy relevance, analytical
soundness and measurability. The aim was to provide information to improve the targeting,
monitoring and assessment of agri-environmental schemes. This initiative was followed by the
publication of a consultative document by the Government of the United Kingdom (Webster,
1999). Proposals were set out for 34 individual indicators based on 11 issues, as listed below:
Issue Theme(s) Proposed indicators
N losses in selected catchments, P losses in selected
Nutrient losses to fresh water; soil P
catchments, percentage of land sampled for P, slurry
1 Nutrient use levels; nutrient management
storage and timing of application, nutrient application
practices; ammonia emissions
techniques and quantity emitted
2 Greenhouse gases Greenhouse gas emissions CH4 emissions and NO emissions
Pesticides in rivers, pesticides in groundwater,
3 Pesticide use Pesticide use quantity of active ingredient, area sprayed, number of
wildlife incidents, residues in food
4 Water use Water use Storage capacity as percentage of irrigated area

5 Water quality Water quality Economic value of irrigated crops

i) Topsoil organic matter content, topsoil heavy metal

i) soil protection; ii) agricultural
content and soil management practices; ii) Area lost
6 Soil quality land resources
to non-agricultural development, area restored
following mineral extraction or landfill
Area under environmental conservation, area under
organic production, length of hedgerows and walls,
Land use and Conservation value of agricultural
7 population of farmland birds, area of semi-natural
conservation land
grassland and area of field margin under
environmental management
8 Wildlife habitats Wildlife habitats Upland management
Environmental management Farmers' adoption of environmental management
9 Farm management
systems systems
European Union producer subsidy equivalent, and
Socio-cultural
10 Rural economy environmental payments as percentage of Common
issues
Agricultural Policy expenditure
Farm financial Agricultural productivity, rural unemployment and
11 Energy
resources area planted with crops for conversion to energy

Gafsi et al. (2006) investigate the sustainability of farming systems and considered two sections
for agricultural sustainability: socio-economic, and environmental and territorial. The
classification of indicators is shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Sustainability assessment framework, Gafsi et al. (2006)
Section (dimension of
Aspect or indicator
sustainability)

28
 Table 7. Sustainability assessment framework, Gafsi et al. (2006)
- Maintain and create employment
Employment
- Facilitate establishment of young farmers
Human resources and - Adapt expertise and qualifications
work - Improve work conditions and organization
- Improve product quality
Product quality
- Increase food safety
Socio-economic
Animal well-being - Improve animal well-being
- Consolidate farmers’ economic organization
- Diversify farm and non-farm activities
Economics and autonomy - Improve marketing channels for farm products
- Increase added value whilst reducing production costs and
optimizing natural resources
- Preserve and improve water quality
Water
- Improve water resource management
- Control erosion
Soils
- Preserve physical/chemical/biological fertility
Air - Preserve and improve air quality
Environmental and
Biodiversity - Preserve natural species and biotopes
territorial
Landscape and cultural - Preserve and enhance heritage buildings
heritage - Preserve, enhance and improve landscape quality
Natural risks - Control erosion, flooding, fires, avalanches
- Reduce energy consumption
Energy
- Develop the use of renewable energy resources

Van Passel et al. (2007) consider agricultural sustainability its indicators from the perspective
of sustainable efficiency, introducing labour productivity, land productivity, capital
productivity, eco-efficiency in terms of energy and eco-efficiency in terms of nitrogen output
as the indicators of farm sustainability.
Bosshard (2000) provides an effective assessment of sustainability in terms of agricultural land
use, and recommended five principal criteria for consideration: i) abiotic environment; ii) biotic
environment, including animal welfare; iii) cultural values, defined as human and social
emotional and mental wellbeing; iv) sociology; and v) economics.
Velten et al. (2015) work from a different perspective to conceptualize the indicators of
agricultural sustainability. They observe that sustainable agriculture is often described as a set
of ideal objectives – goals – that must be achieved, and study different approaches and
principles – strategies – that should or should not be applied in different areas, which they define
as fields of action. They identify 17 themes and specify clear goals, strategies and fields of
action for sustainable agriculture in a context of social science and governance to form a
framework of sustainable agriculture (see Figure 3). The 17 themes include the 66 categories
of sustainable agriculture identified through qualitative analysis (see Tables 8–10).
Figure 3: Groups and themes of the sustainable agriculture framework

29
Table 8. Themes and categories of sustainable agriculture: goals
Goal themes Goal categories
General Specific
Ethics
Multifunctionality
Overarching goals
Safety
Stability and resilience
Ecosystem function conservation
Environmental goals:
Natural resource conservation
production-specific
Productive capacity
Ecological soundness
Animal wellbeing
Environmental goals:
Environment conservation and improvement
non production-specific
Harmony with nature
Acceptability
Cultural preservation
Equity, justice, fairness
Fulfilment of human needs
Social goals Social responsibility Good working conditions
Human health
Nourishment
Quality of life
Strong communities
Development
Livelihood
Economic goals Economic viability
Provision of products
Thriving economy
Table 9. Themes and categories of sustainable agriculture: strategies
Strategy themes Strategy Categories
Adaptation
Learning and experimentation
Adaptive management Management, integration and redesign
Prevention
Substitution
Collaboration and communication
Cooperation
Participation
Diversification
Ecology-based strategy
Ecological principles
Economics-based strategy Capital asset maintenance

30
 Demand orientation
Efficiency
Quality orientation
Long-term perspective
Holistic and complex systems thinking Sensitivity to scale
Systemic thinking
Innovation
Knowledge and science Modern
Traditional
Decentralization
Subsidiarity Independence
Local/regional

Table 10. Themes and categories of sustainable agriculture: fields of action

Field of action themes Field of action categories
Consumption
Agrifood system Production
Supply chain
Crops and livestock
Management tools
Management and technological solutions
Resource use
Technology and practices
Emission reduction
Social and environmental challenges
Global trends
Organization
Social and human capital Knowledge, education, skills
Research and development
Accessibility
Economic system
Infrastructure
Social, Political and Economic environment
Investment
Policy and institutions
Society

31
Roy et al. (2013) develop indicators for sustainable rice farming in Bangladesh using a Delphi
technique encompassing three dimensions: economic, social and environmental, as set out
below:
Dimension Theme(s) Indicators
Farm profitability, land holding,
farmers income, input subsidies,
1. Economic Land productivity
extent of farm mechanization, market
diversification
Social capital, human capital, input
availability, food self-sufficiency,
Availability of labour, cropping resource-conservation practices and
2. Social patterns, health hazards, rural technologies, information availability,
infrastructure equity, extension services, availability
of new rice varieties, e.g. flood-
resistant
Soil quality, crop diversification, soil
fertility management, integrated pest
Agro-biodiversity, water pollution,
3. Environmental and disease management, nutrient
disaster management, soil erosion
management, irrigation efficiency,
extent of greenhouse gas emissions

Smith and McDonald (1997) argue that profitability indicators such as total production and net
farm income are the primary indicators of agricultural sustainability. They adopted an
environmental point of view, focusing on trends in land and water use. Chen (2000) proposes a
set of indicators for assessing agricultural sustainability, and identified challenges with regard
to balanced development of the environmental, resource, population, economic and social
components. Zhen and Routray (2003) propose operational indicators based on defined
selection criteria, and suggested that the selection of indicators should be prioritized according
to the spatial and temporal characteristics under consideration.
Saifia and Drake (2008) present a model for agricultural sustainability based on the relations
between principles, dimensions and indicators. Guttenstein et al. (2010) stress that per capita
income and equity and human rights should be considered in selecting economic and social
indicators, and accorded equal importance to greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity and
desertification as core indicators in the ecological dimension.
Ion (2011) attempts to monitor the development of sustainable agriculture in Romania with the
following indicators:
• consumption of certain foods per inhabitant;
• ecolabel licenses;
• area under agri-environmental management;
• area under organic farming; and
•lLivestock density index.
There have been numerous attempts to assess agricultural sustainability with a view to
constructing a complete set of indicators (Roy and Chan, 2012). Table 11 summarizes the
agricultural sustainability indicators proposed by researchers.

32
Table 11. Sustainability indicators proposed by researchers, in chronological order
Indicator
Source
Economical Social Ecological
Access to resources, skills, Land capability, nutrient
Production cost, product knowledge and planning balance, biological activity,
Smith and McDonald, 1997
prices, net farm income capacity of farmers, soil erosion, use of F/Pe,
awareness WUE
Gowda and Jayaramaiah, Land Pd, crop yield security, Input S, self-reliance for info., Integrated nutrient Mgt, W,
1998 input Pd food sufficiency and Pe Mgt
Use of external input, G/W
Total Ag products, per capita Per-capita food supply, land
quality, soil erosion, per-
Chen, 2000 food production, net farm tax, participation in decision-
capita disaster loss, cropping
income making
index
Nutrient balance, efficiencies
Cultural level, number of
Yield, income per labourer, of F and I/W uses, soil
Nambiar et al., 2001 varieties of livestock and
real net output per unit land erosion, saline content and
organisms
soil quality
Amounts of F, Pe and W
Crop Pd, net farm income, Food self-sufficiency,
used, soil nutrient content,
cost/benefit ratio of equality, access to resources
Zhen and Routray, 2003 G/W table, WUE, quality of
production, per-capita food and support services, farmers’
G/W and NO3 in G/W and
grain production knowledge and awareness
crops
Sorghum, meat and milk Availability of milk, labour
yield, cost/benefit ratio, demand, org. inputs OM, soil loss, run-off
Lopez-Ridaura et al., 2002
economic return from labour, dependency, stability in coefficient,
investment cost production,
Land-use pattern, cropping
S input, equity, food security
Land Pd, yield stability and pattern, soil fertility Mgt, pest
Rasul and Thapa, 2004 and risks, uncertainties in
profitability from staple crops and disease Mgt, and soil
cultivation
fertility
Depth to GW table, WUE,
Crop Pd, per-capita food Food S and adequacy and
soil quality – pH, OM, N, P
Zhen et al., 2005 production, net farm return effectiveness of the extension
and K – NO3 in G/W and
and benefit–cost ratio services
chive plants
Eutrophication, G/W
Working conditions, food
pollution, dehydration of soil,
Van Calker et al., 2006 Profitability safety, animal welfare and
global warming, acidification,
health, landscape quality
ecotoxicity
W, soil, B, N, and P emission
Economic stability, economic Working conditions, social
Häni et al,. 2006 potential, plant protection,
efficiency, local economy security
waste and energy
Land holding; crop area,
Soil fertility status including
labor; I freq., quantity of Age and education level of
Zhen et al., 2006 soil pH, N, P, K and OM
G/W, N, P, K, F used; Pd, respondent
content
farm income
Ratio of water for irrigation in
Ratio of fossil energy in total water resource recharge,
Farmer development index –
energy wage, ratio of product Concentration of NO in
Qiu et al., 2007 health, education, gross
for process, ratio of actual groundwater, pollution level
domestic product per capita
yield in potential yield of surface water, soil organic
matter
Value system and ethics, food Ecological system and
Farm economy, technological demand, food safety and environmental degradation,
Saifia and Drake, 2008
development, traditional Ag health aspects, food security on-farm and off-farm natural
and distribution resources, energy and biomass
Soil and water quality, agro
Profit, income stability, Stress, risks, safety, nutrition,
and natural biodiversity,
Sydorovych and Wossink, reliance on purchased inputs quality, taste, impact, animal
efficiency of natural resource
2008 and subsidies, sufficiency of care, attractiveness, odours,
use, solid waste disposal, air
cash flow, govt. regulation noise, info.
quality, GHG emissions
Value chain, energy, water, Social and human capital, Soil fertility and health, soil
Pretty et al., 2008
local economy animal welfare loss, nutrients, pest Mgt, B
GHG emissions, B
Return on investment, labor Level of education, social eutrophication, electricity
Binder et al., 2008 Pd, hourly wage, market capital, social acceptance, conservation, processing and
power, subsidies, production human capital cooling, energy conservation,
transport
Total gross margin, profit, Agro-diversity, soil cover, W
Gomez-Limon and Riesgo, Total labour, seasonal labour
public subsidies, gross use, nitrogen and energy
2008 employment
domestic product contribution balance, P risk
Market return, viability, direct Demographic viability,
Jane Dillon et al., 2009 W quality, air quality
payments isolation

33
 Ratio of income/capita of Nutritional status, extent of
G and surface W
farm, social integration and aboriginal participation,
consumption, B, % of land
Guttenstein et al., 2010 connectedness, diversity of gender ratio, enrolment ratio
affected by desertification,
farm, volume of goods and in education, access and
carbon dioxide emissions
services control to land, W and B
Agro-ecological: pollution
Working conditions, quality
Viability, autonomy, control and soil fertility, crop
Gafsi and Favreau, 2010 of life, local economy, social
transmissibility, efficiency rotation, Ag and natural B,
involvement
resources Mgt
Gross Ag value and Ag Use of F and Pe, I/W
margin, crop diversity, Age, level of education, pluri- consumption, farm Mgt, agro-
Dantsis et al., 2010
holding size, plot no/. farm, activity, family size, E in ag ecological Mgt, farm
machinery machinery, type of farming
Labour and land Pd, E in ag, old-age index, Arable surfaces, permanent
Vecchione, 2010 fragmentation, value addition, education, gender crops, poplar wood, woods,
diversification, mechanization composition, population other surfaces, biodiversity
Olive grove varieties,
Total labour, labour
Profitability, changes in biological diversity, Pe risk,
productivity, soil cover, risk
farmer’s profitability, % of land planted with crops,
Gomez-Limón and Riesgo, of ag abandonment, family
adaptation index, production % of non-arable land, eroded
2010 and permanent labour,
value, changes in sales, Ag soil, OM, N, and energy
membership, olive oil
value addition, income, F balance, herbicide and
classification
I W use,
Salary, working hours, Balances of NO, P and K,
holidays, education and organic matter balance,
Farm income, net margin,
training, safety and health specific energy consumption,
Hřebíček et al., 2013 indebtedness, gross margin,
protection at work, workers intensity of plant protection,
liquidity, profitability,
participation, social soil erosion, system diversity
engagement potential
Soil fertility, pest and disease
Crop productivity, net farm Food self-sufficiency, access occurrence, W use efficiency,
Van Pham and Smith, 2014
income to services and resources use of chemical F, use of
chemical Pe
Local community Land preparation, erosion
Pd, cost of production, farm engagement, resources control, nutrient and soil
income, product quality, availability/accessibility, fertility management, use of
Waney et al., 2014 product price stability, support system accessibility, F, intensity of land
marketing network, knowledge about resource occupation, cropping system,
producer/buyer relationship conservation, stakeholder weed control, pest and disease
support control
Cost of milk production,
labour productivity, capital Proportion of dung production
Women's empowerment
productivity, feed used for fuel, enteric methane
Chand et al., 2015 measure, carrying of weight,
productivity, family labour emissions, adoption of
sharing of work burden, days
income per capita relative to scientific animal breeding
off
consumption expenditure per practices
capita
Physical quality index of
Family work, total net Cooperatives of farmers, soils, texture quality index,
Roboredo et al., 2016 income, transport, associations of farmers, stoniness index, quality index
commercialization, unions of soil fertility, water quality
index, plant diversity index,
Population growth, education
Employment status, primary
attainment, voter Ambient pollutants, GHG, W
jobs/green jobs, income,
participation, income pollution, W use, W
waste generation, energy
King, 2016 inequality, poverty rate, health availability, floodplain
consumption, access to public
service coverage, expansion, land cover change,
transport, vehicle miles
affordability, accessibility of jobs/housing balance
travelled, travel choice
public spaces, "food deserts"
GHG emissions per farm,
Pd of labour, Pd of land, Household vulnerability, level GHG emissions per kg of
profitability, viability of of agricultural education, output, emissions from fuel
Jane Dillon et al., 2016
investment, market isolation risk, high age and electricity, N balance
orientation, profile, work–life balance, per ha, N use efficiency per
farm,
Nutrients, pesticides, non-
Economic viability is mainly Well-being, physical health, renewable resources (i.e. energy
measured through quality of life, social and water), land management,
emissions of greenhouse gases
Latruffe et al. (2016) profitability, liquidity, diversification, image of (GHG) and acidifying substances,
stability, productivity and farmers/ agriculture in local biodiversity, and physical,
autonomy. communities chemical and biological soil
quality
Ag – agriculture; G – ground; W – water; I – irrigation; Pe – pesticide; F – fertilizer; Pd – productivity; Mgt – management;
OM: – organic matter content; B – biodiversity; WUE – water-use efficiency; Env – environment; E – employment;
S – self-sufficiency; GHG – greenhouse gases; K – potassium; P – phosphorus; NO – nitrogen oxide

34
Indicators for measuring agricultural non-sustainability
A fundamental step in formulating policies for sustainable agricultural is to find quantitative
indicators. Without them it is impossible to judge the exact nature of change and whether
development is progressing or regressing (Zhen and Routray, 2003). The development of a
quantitative measure of sustainability is an important prerequisite for the development of
legislative measures for agriculture. Sustainability indicators have been defined as indicators
that provide direct or indirect information about the future viability of particular social
objectives such as material welfare, environmental quality and natural amenities (Zhen and
Routray, 2003; Braat, 1991).
But it has been suggested in the literature that indicators of non-sustainability may be used in
place of indicators of sustainability when evaluating agricultural systems. The logic is that it is
easier and quicker to identify constraints to progress rather than all the factors that contribute
to progress. As noted by Smith and McDonald (1997), indicators of non-sustainability are
desirable because:
i. they remove the need to define what is sustainable;
ii. they are normally already available and measurable;
iii. their causes and effects are usually known; and
iv. they are easily linked to resource management practices.
Directly visible indicators of non-sustainability include land degradation, changed botanical
composition of forests and pastures, prolonged negative trends in yields, lower per-capita
availability of agricultural products, increasing use of sub-marginal lands, high intensity of
input use and reduced biodiversity. Other indicators of change are the substitution of deep-
rooted crops by shallow-rooted crops and excessive dependence on external resources such as
fertilizers and pesticides (Feher and Beke, 2013). Bernard et al. (2014) identify some potential
sources of non-sustainability in farms, as shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Aspects of farms and associated potential sources of unsustainability
Aspects of dynamic farms Potential cause of unsustainability
Solar energy converters, linking carbon, nitrogen, Loss of primary productivity, interrupted nutrient cycles
phosphorus and water cycles and lateral flows and water flows, depleted soil carbon stocks, loss of soil
structure and biota
Enterprises that use land, labour, knowledge, germplasm Loss of any of main production factors, for which more
and capital in production profitable uses may arise from new economic
opportunities
Starting points of value-chains that feed the world and Loss of demand for products, for example due to concerns
satisfy part of its fibre and fuel requirements over product quality and/or quality of the production
process
Part of social networks Conflict and loss of collective action
A component of large household livelihood systems Loss of complementarity with other parts of livelihood
systems and evolving ambitions
Links in inter-generational knowledge chains that Loss of relevance of existing knowledge under new
combine informal and formal science circumstances, dominance of external, formal knowledge,
loss of effective intergenerational transmission and
learning
Part of landscapes Conflicts over lateral flows such as water, nutrients, soil,
organisms or fire and integral landscape functions such as
perceived beauty
Agro-biodiversity management units, involved in Lack of adaptive capacity of farm-level germplasm in the
selective reproduction of crops, livestock and trees face of new challenges (pests and diseases, climate
making them drivers of inter- and intraspecific genetic change, shifting market demands), lack of access to
diversity trends external germplasm

35
The analysis by Bernard et al. (2014) suggests a number of indicators that characterize
agricultural non-sustainability as a result of major actors' decisions, choices and interactions
with farms. Examples of indicators that can be used in different countries and contexts are
shown in Table 13. They can facilitate reviews of the current inter-relationship between
agriculture and farming from the perspective of a social actor (such as farmers) and hence
identify major threats. In this context, there may be thresholds for some indicators such as
acceptable/unacceptable or "in"/"out"; for other indicators, quantitative and/or qualitative
interpretation will guide learning and responses.

36
Table 13. Indicators for characterizing non-sustainability of agriculture resulting from major actors’ decisions, choices and interactions with farms
Actors with potential to cause
unsustainability
Indicators Possible metrics
Rate of return on investment
Economic bottom line
Loss-making investors and credit Input/output accounting
Opportunity costs of options foregone
providers Known risks
Risk quantifiers
"Guesstimated" level of uncertainty
Number of conflicts that are reported in
Conflicts over water use media, and/or reach local or national
parliaments
Conflicts over pollution – water, atmosphere, noise,
Angry neighbours
haze and similar lateral flows Number and type of monitoring systems
Conflicts over landscape beauty set up to clarify and quantify issues
Conflicts caused by agricultural practices such as free Number of negotiated agreements
grazing, fire setting, poor soil conservation practices
Shifts in market shares
Emergence of new issues of consumer concern
Shifts to alternative providers Number of conversations between
producers and consumers
Dissatisfied customers Market share of certified products and
Responsiveness of producers to consumer concerns price differential in relation to transaction
costs
Development of certification schemes that address
consumer concerns
Transaction costs and time required for
Complexity and costs of procedures needed for permits clearance
for resource access and use
Absence, inadequacy or outdatedness of development and Land use plan, its scope, origin and
Over-zealous regulators land use plans enforcement
Biased/top-down economic and development instruments
such as subsidies and taxes Number of negotiated agreements in
multi-stakeholder fora
Inter-generational reduction in number of
Number of farms that are not sustained inter-
active farms
Farmers without options to respond generationally
to new conditions and challenges Land conversion to non-agricultural
Rural–urban migration of young people
functions
Source: Bernard et al., 2014

37
 The indicators for agricultural non-sustainability proposed by Smith and McDonald (1997)
were soil nutrient exhaustion, surface soil acidity, nutrients in streams, waterlogging and
salinity, decline of soil structure and organic matter, chemical contamination, subsurface soil
acidity, reduced diversity of species, increased "greenhouse" effects, organochlorine
contamination, silting in bodies of stored water, salinity, loss of soil mass, loss of biodiversity,
loss of habitats and contamination by heavy metals. Jodha (1990) examines indicators of
agricultural non-sustainability as shown in Table 14.
Table 14. Indicators of non-sustainability
Visibility of
Resource base Production flows Resource management practices
change
Increased landslides and other Prolonged negative trends
Less fallow, crop rotation, intercropping
forms of land degradation; in yield; increasing
and diversified management practices;
fragmentation of land; changed production inputs per
Directly visible increasing use of sub-marginal lands;
botanical composition of forests production unit; lower
increased use of legal measures to control
and pastures; reduced water flows per-capita availability of
land use; high intensity of input use
for irrigation agricultural products
Introduction of externally
Changes
Substitution of deep-rooted crops supported public food and Shifts in cropping patterns and composition
concealed by
by shallow-rooted crops; shift to input distribution of livestock; less diversity and increasing
responses to
non-local inputs systems; intensive monocultures
management
cropping on limited areas
Agricultural measures
New systems without linkages to directed to short-term
other diversified activities, results, primarily product-
Development
generating excessive dependence centred rather than
initiatives
on outside resources such as resource-centred
fertilizers and pesticides approaches to agricultural
development

Some indicators for non-sustainability in livestock systems proposed by Ronchi and Nardone
(2003) are shown in Table 15.
Table 15. Emerging indicators of non-sustainability in farming of small ruminants in the
Mediterranean area
Landscape degradation
Degradation of communal pastures, also resulting from mixed grazing with other herbivores
Abandonment of marginal lands
Low level of integration between agriculture and livestock
Land fragmentation
High dependence of farmers on purchased feed
Reduced diversity and increased specialization in monocropping
Numerical reduction of local breeds and populations
High incidence of parasite disease and hence preventive and curative chemical treatments
High incidence of clinical and subclinical mastitis
High incidence of other diseases
High variability of milk quality

9. Proposing a common set of indicators for measuring agricultural

sustainability at the farm level
The indicators discussed here draw on Taylor et al. (1993), who constructs and index of
indicators for a sample of 85 agricultural producers in Malaysia that covered: i) insect control;
ii) disease control; iii) weed control; iv) maintenance of soil fertility; and v) control of soil
erosion.

38
The following indicators were constructed by Rigby and Caceres (2001) for a sample of ten
farms in the Guba region of the Philippines:
Improved farm-level social and economic sustainability
 enhances farmers’ quality of life (United States Farm Bill, 1990);
 increases farmers’ self-reliance (Pretty, 1995); and
 sustains the viability/profitability of the farm (Pretty, 1995; United States Farm Bill, 1990;
Ikerd, 1993).
Improved social and economic sustainability
 improves equity (Pretty, 1995) and is "socially supportive" (Ikerd, 1993); and
 meets society’s need for food and fibre (United States Farm Bill, 1990).
Increased yields and fewer losses while
 minimizing off-farm inputs (Hodge, 1993; Pretty, 1995; United States Farm Bill, 1990);
 minimizing inputs from non-renewable sources (Hodge, 1993; Ikerd, 1993; Pretty, 1995; United
States Farm Bill, 1990);
 maximizing use of natural biological processes (Pretty, 1995; United States Farm Bill, 1990);
and
 promoting local biodiversity and "environmental quality" (Hodge, 1993; Pretty, 1995; United
States Farm Bill, 1990).
Jane Dillon et al. (2016) create farm-level agricultural sustainability indicators using the FADN
(Farm Accountancy Data Network) Teagasc National Farm Survey data for Ireland, and
suggested the following:
Economic facet Social facet Ecological facet
GHG emissions per
Household farm
Productivity of labour vulnerability GHG emissions per
Productivity of land Level of agricultural kg output
Profitability education Emissions from fuel
Viability of investment Isolation risk Electricity
Market orientation High age profile Nitrogen balance/ha
Work–life balance Nitrogen use efficiency
per farm

Meul et al. (2008) apply MOTIFS (Monitoring Tool for Integrated Farm Sustainability) as a
tool for monitoring integrated farm sustainability by taking into account economic, ecological
and social aspects. Four steps were considered: i) translating the principles of a vision of
sustainable Flemish agriculture into themes; ii) designing indicators to monitor progress in
sustainability for each theme; iii) aggregating the indicators into a farm sustainability
monitoring tool; and iv) applying the tool on an actual farm as an initial attempt at end-use
validation. Particular was paid to aspects such as communication and user-friendliness. Table
16 shows the indicators designed for the ten sustainability themes.

39
 Table 16. Level 1, level 2 and level 3 themes and indicators of the Meul et al. (2008) monitoring system: definitions and choices of method
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Ecological themes
Pesticide use Amount used and environmental effects
Pesticides
Pesticide management Risk of environmental effects based on eight factors concerning pesticide management
Energy use efficiency Amount of product produced with one unit of energy
Renewable energy use Share of renewable energy sources used on the farm
Energy Water use efficiency Amount of product produced with one unit of water
Use of inputs Use of alternative water
Share of alternative water resources used on-farm – rainwater, surface water and shallow ground water
resources
N surplus Risk of environmental effects
N use efficiency Amount of product produced per unit of N surplus
Nutrients
P surplus Risk of environmental effects
P use efficiency Amount of product produced per unit of P surplus
Organic matter content Organic matter content of the soil
pH Soil acidity as an indicator of chemical soil quality
P content P content of the soil as an indicator of chemical soil quality
Soil quality
Quality of natural K content K content of the soil as an indicator of chemical soil quality
resources Biological soil quality Biological quality of the soil
Physical soil quality Physical quality of the soil
Water quality Risk of surface water contamination from waste water based on three aspects of waste water management
Air quality Risk of air pollution from farming activities
Genetic diversity Diversity of crops and animals used in agriculture
Biodiversity Species diversity Diversity of wildlife species dependent or affected by agriculture
Habitat diversity Diversity of habitats related to agricultural production
Economic themes
Labour productivity Value added per unit of farm labour
Productivity and Capital productivity Value added per unit of farm capital
efficiency Land productivity Value per unit of land use
Efficiency Ratio of actual total productivity to maximum attainable productivity
Labour profitability Farm labour income per unit of farm labour
Profitability Return on equity Farm profit per unit of own capital
Return on assets Farm profit per unit of total capital – farm capital and land capital
Risk Probability that the production of value added is affected by external events

40
 Social themes
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
How a farmer’s identity and expectations fit with the daily reality of farming in a changing social, cultural,
Professional pride environmental, economic and political environment
Internal social Assessment based on eight factors in a list of 24 that the farmer considers essential for maintaining his pride
sustainability Decision latitude Room for manoeuvre to take own decisions according to own insights, capacities and desires
Existence of formal and informal structures and institutions that allow people to take care of each other according to
Care
their own values
Body condition score Percentage of thin cows
Level of dirt Share of dirty cows – udders, flanks and legs
Animal health and Skin lesions Share of cows with lesions on hock, neck and spine
welfare Locomotion score Share of cows with a low mean locomotion score
teat-end condition Share of cows with thick and rough teat-end callosity rings
Udder condition Share of cows with subclinical and clinical mastitis
External social
Stewardship agreements Presence of stewardship agreements
sustainability
Small landscape elements Time spent maintaining small landscape elements
Landscape Nature conservation Work on nature conservation
management Visual nuisance Work minimize visual nuisance
Architectural quality Work on architectural quality
Surrounding landscape Awareness of effects on surrounding landscape
Social services Provision of social services
Disposable income Total income earned on-farm or off-farm that farmer and family have at their disposal
Entrepreneurship Extent of farmer’s entrepreneurship based on three aspects – vision, strategy and management

41
Senanayake (1991) proposes that agricultural systems have varying degrees of sustainability
according to the level of external inputs required to maintain the system. The resulting index is
shown below:
S = f (Ei, Er, Pe, Se, Rs, Rb)
S = index of ecological sustainability
Ei = external input
Er = energy ratio
Pe = power equivalent
Se = efficiency of solar flux use
Rs = residence time of soil
Rb = residence time of biotic
Each parameter has its own two or three possible states: the three possible states of Ei, for
example, are listed as 0.1, 0.5 and 1.0. Ei is seen to be more sustainable at lower values.
The terms Rs and Rb depict two possible states – 0 and 1. In the zero state the farming category
is unsustainable no matter what the other measures are. In the value state, the farming type is
sustainable but the degree of sustainability depends on the values of other parameters. In terms
of agricultural sustainability:
S= Rs× Rb / [ f (ve) - f (vd) ]
Where
ve = f (Se, Pr)
Vd = f (Ei, Er, Pe)
Hence any farming system type that contributes to physical erosion or a high rate of soil biomass
loss will yield a value of 0, and can be termed non-sustainable. A farming type that conserves
these basic resources will yield a positive value, and can therefore be termed potentially
sustainable.
Hayati and Karami (1995) suggest an operational index to measure agricultural sustainability
trends at the farm level: the factors measured include those that appear in the crop-production
process and that could have a positive effect in the process. The equation is:
8 3
S=f[  Xi ,
i 1
 Yj ]
j 1

S = Trend of sustainability
X1= Average of crop production per hectare
X2= Rotation of crops
X3= Use of organic manures
X4= Use of green manures
X5= Use of crop stubble
X6= Use of conservational plough
X7= Trend of change in on-farm water resources
X8= Trend of change in on-farm soil resources
Y1= Pesticide, herbicide and fungicide consumption on-farm in a single cultivation season
Y2= Nitrate fertilizer consumption per tonne of crop production
Y3= Phosphate fertilizer consumption per tonne of crop production

42
In fact the parameters of X1 to X8 could lead to greater sustainability if they increase; parameters
of Y1 to Y3 could lead to non-sustainability if they increase:
8 3
S=  Xi -  Yj
i 1 j 1

In order to measure agricultural sustainability at the farm level, Saltiel et al. (1994) presented
an index consisting of seven components: cultivation of sustainable crops, conservational
cultivation, crop rotation, reduced use of pesticides and herbicides, soil mulching and use of
organic fertilizers.
Gómez-Limón and Riesgo (2010) introduce indicators for farm-level sustainability assessments
and applied a definition of agricultural sustainability with three "pillars" for conceptualizing the
indicators. The indicators in this research were:
 Economic – profitability, changes in farm profitability, adaptation index, production value,
changes in sales, agriculture value addition, income;
 Social – total labour, labour productivity, soil cover, risk of abandonment, family and permanent
labour, memberships, olive oil classification; and
 Ecological – olive varieties, biological diversity, pesticide risk, % of land planted with crops,
% of non-arable land, eroded soil, organic matter content, energy balance, herbicide and use of
irrigation water.

Indicators of sustainability at the regional level

Table 17 shows the indicators for 252 European regions selected with a view to assessing the
sustainability of various European agricultural systems (Gerdessen and Pascucci, 2013).
Table 17. Indicators of agricultural sustainability in European regions

Economic dimension (feasibility) Description

The gross value added is defined as the value of output less
the value of intermediate consumption. Output is valued at
basic prices and intermediate consumption is valued at
purchasers’ prices. As indicated by the European
Value added per annual Commission the gross value added per annual work unit
Productivity of labour
work unit provides comparable data on labour productivity and allows
for comparison among sub-sectors and regions. An annual
work unit corresponds to 2,200 working hours per year,
which is the number of hours an employee is willing to
provide when fully employed in the agricultural business.
Gross fixed capital The gross fixed capital formation in agriculture per farm
Investment level formation in agriculture refers to the investments in assets that are used repeatedly or
(Euro/farm) continuously over a number of years to produce goods.
Social dimension (acceptability)
Social indicator 3 refers to the ratio of young and old farmers
in a given region. It provides the measurement of take-over
Inter-generational Ratio of farmers <35 in agriculture. A ratio close to zero indicates very low take-
equity years/farmers >55 years over and hence an unattractive agricultural sector, whereas a
value close to one indicates high take-over and hence an
attractive agricultural sector.
Social indicator 4 refers to the percentage of farmers who
have been fully trained in agriculture. This indicator is
calculated as any training course continuing for the
Training and education in
equivalent of at least two years full-time after the end of
agriculture (% land
Education level compulsory education, and completed at an agricultural
managers
college, university or other institute with courses in
with high education)
agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, forestry, aquaculture,
veterinary science, agricultural technology or an associated
subject.

43
44
 Environmental dimension (carrying capacity )
Environmental indicator 5 refers to the risk of soil erosion,
which is estimated on the base of the Pan-European Soil
Risk of soil erosion Erosion Risk Assessment project. This indicator expresses
(t/(year ha)) the potentiality of soil loss in terms of tonnes per hectare and
per year.
Indicator 6 is the area under arable crops – not forage crops –
Intensity of land use for
Land management when the regional yield for cereals other than rice is more
plant production (% of
than 60% of the EU-27 average. Cereal yield is a 3-year
utilized agricultural area)
average.
Intensity of land use for
Indicator 7 is the area for grazing cattle, sheep and goats
animal production
when stock density exceeds 1 livestock unit per hectare of
(% of utilized agricultural
forage crops, permanent pastures and meadows.
area)
Environmental indicator 8 refers to the percentage of
hectares in which irrigation is used. An irrigated area is
Relevance of irrigated defined as an area of irrigated crops – that is, the area of
Water management areas (% of utilized crops that have actually been irrigated at least once during
agricultural area) the 12 months prior to the survey date. Crops under glass and
kitchen gardens, which are almost always irrigated, are not
included.

Nambiar et al. (2001) offer a regional index of agricultural sustainability that considered
biophysical, chemical and socio-economic indicators of sustainability. The categories and
indicators in the index were:
1. Agricultural nutrient balance: the parameters of agriculture nutrient balance are gross nutrient balance
and input/output ratio.
2. Crop yield: long-term crop yield trends provide information on the biological productive capacity of
agricultural land and the ability of agriculture to sustain resource production capacity and manage
production risks.
3. Agricultural management: the parameters are fertilizer use efficiency (%) and irrigated water use
efficiency (%).
4. Agri-environmental quality: the parameters are soil erosion (soil/km2) and soil saline content (mg/kg).
5. Agricultural biodiversity: the parameters are the number of varieties of livestock and the number of
organisms.
6. Economic and social viability: the parameters are income per labourer (US$), real net output per unit of
land (US$/ha) and cultural level.
7. Net energy balance: the parameter is the input/output ratio of energy.
8. Soil quality: the parameters are clay content (%), soil depth (cm), bulk density, available water capacity
(cm3), organic matter (%), pH, permeability (cm/h), EC (mS/cm), and CEC (cmol/100 g).
Herrera et al. (2016) pointed to stakeholders’ (farmers, farm advisors, farm data collectors,
policy makers and/or policy evaluators and so on) perceptions of sustainability measurement at
farm level. This research was part of the European Union (EU) Framework 7 project FLINT
(Farm Level Indicators for New Topics in Policy Evaluation), the objective of which is to test
the feasibility of establishing a common standard set of farm-level indicators for policy
evaluation in nine EU Member States, ideally linked with the Farm Accountancy Data Network
(FADN). The dimensions and indicators of farm level agricultural sustainability in this study
were demonstrated in table 18.
The EU Framework 7 project FLINT (Farm-Level Indicators on New Topics in policy
evaluation) was created to address the gap between the data needs for policy evaluation and
research and the currently-available agricultural statistics. The monitoring and evaluation of the
CAP requires data (preferably at farm level) which are not available at the moment in the EU
information systems. FLINT provides an opportunity to test the feasibility and to show the
added value of having a wider set of sustainability indicators to monitor and evaluate the
agricultural policies and design more targeted policy measures (Pope et al., 2016).

45
A comparison of the policy needs and the identified indicators has resulted in the identification
of 33 sustainability themes to be included in the FLINT project. The themes cover the three
sustainability dimensions of people, planet and profit for a description of the indicators. The
list of environmental indicators themes is the longest, indicating the serious lack of data at farm
level on these issues. The environmental indicators cover important topics such as use of
pesticides, nitrogen balances, water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, farm practices
with respect to soil erosion, nitrate leaching and soil organic matter. There are fewer economic
indicators but these refer exclusively to those not yet included in FADN. They cover topics
such as risk management, innovation, sales channels, farm succession and the use of contracts.
The social indicators are the most qualitative by nature and involve issues such as education
and training (use of advisory services), engagement in the farming sector and rural society,
quality of life and working conditions (Pope et al., 2016).

Table 18. Indicators of sustainability at farm level by dimension of sustainability.

Environmental Economic and innovation Social
1. Permanent grassland 1. Innovation 1. Advisory services
2. Ecological Focus Areas 2. Producing under a label or 2. Education and training
3. Semi-natural farmland areas brand 3. Ownership-management
4. Pesticide usage 3. Types of market outlet 4. Social engagement and
5. Nutrient balance (N, P) 4. Past/future duration in farming participation
6. Soil organic matter in arable 5. Efficiency field parcel 5. Employment and working
land 6. Modernisation of the farm conditions
7. Indirect energy usage investment 5. Quality of life/decision making
8. Direct energy usage 7. Insurance: production, personal 6. Social diversification: image of
9. On-farm renewable energy and farm (building structure) farmers/ agriculture in local
production 8. Share of output under contract communities
10. Farm management to reduce with fixed price delivery
nitrate leaching contracts
11. Farm management to reduce 9. Non-agricultural activities
soil erosion
12. Use of legumes
13. GHG emissions per ha
14. GHG emissions per product
15. Carbon sequestering land uses
16. Water usage and storage
17. Irrigation practices

Indicators of sustainability at the national level

It should be noted that the first set of 134 sustainability indicators was published in 1996 by the
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs with a view to developing a central
list of indicators to enable country-to-country comparisons. The indicators were organized into
a framework with a view to capturing inter-relationships among the indictors; the framework
used was the driving-force-state-response method (DSR). Utilization of a framework was the
basis for the selection of indicators because characterization was the fundamental criterion (UN,
1996). After consultation and testing between 1996 and 1999, another system – the theme/sub-
theme framework – was recommended because it could capture policy issues and major issues
related to sustainable development more completely. This set of 58 indicators was organized
into themes and sub-themes with four pillars: social development, economic development,
environmental development and institutional development (UN, 2001). The most recent
national-level framework contains 96 indicators, of which 50 are considered core indicators.

46
The framework is still recommended, but separation of indicators in accordance with the social,
economic, environmental and institutional pillars is no longer included (UN, 2007). Other
systems include capital frameworks, accounting frameworks, aggregated indicators and goal-
indicator frameworks (King, 2016).
Many researchers have investigated national-level sustainability indicators for agricultural
sectors. Van Calker et al. (2006), for example, investigate multi-attribute sustainability
functions for Dutch dairy farming systems: the approach utilized four steps: i) determination of
attribute utility functions; ii) allocation of attribute weights to determine utility functions per
aspect; iii) assessment of aspect weights to determine the overall sustainability function per
stakeholder group; and iv) determination of the overall sustainability function for society by
aggregating the preferences of stakeholders and experts. The indicators in this study were
constructed in three dimensions of sustainability – economic, social and ecological. Indicators
of agricultural sustainability for each dimension are:
Economic: profitability;
Social: working conditions, food safety, animal welfare and health, landscape quality; and
Ecological: eutrophication, groundwater pollution, dehydration of soil, global warming, acidification,
ecotoxicity.
Nambiar et al. (2001) reported the biophysical, chemical and socio-economic indicators of
assessing agricultural sustainability in the coastal zone of China. The indicators of sustainable
agriculture can also be categorized in the three dimensions:
Economic: yield, income per labourer, real net output per unit land;
Social: cultural level, number of varieties of livestock, number of organisms; and
Ecological: nutrient balance, efficienc y of fertilizer and irrigation water use, soil erosion, saline content
and soil quality.
A set of indicators for sustainability applied in different national agricultural policy scenarios
is presented by Lehtonen et al. (2005), who aim to provide material for policy dialogue rather
than a comprehensive assessment of the sustainability of various agricultural policy alternatives
(see Table 19). They also presented the kind of agricultural development reflected in each
indicator and the overall goal of each indicator. It is important to understand that the numerical
values of the calculated indicators and also relative changes over time are important when
evaluating the sustainability of alternative agricultural policies.

47
Table 19. Indicators applied in agricultural policy scenario analysis: Lehtonen et al., 2005;
Hayati et al., 2009
Measured
Applied indicator Indicator reflecting Overall goal of indicator
quality

To determine the relative economic

Total number of animal The scale and long-term economic
Animal units viability of animal production in
units up to 2020 viability of aggregate animal production
different policy scenarios
To determine the relative economic
Number of bovine animal The scale and long-term economic
Animal units viability of dairy and beef production in
units viability of dairy and beef production
different policy scenarios
To determine the relative economic
Number of pig animal The scale and long-term economic
Animal units viability of pig production in different
units viability of pig production
policy scenarios
To determine the relative economic
Number of poultry animal The scale and long-term economic
Animal units viability of poultry production in
units viability of poultry production
different policy scenarios
Total cultivated area
Changes in incentives for active crop
(excluding set-aside) up to Hectares Incentives for active crop production
production
2020
Changes in incentives in fulfilling cross-
Incentives for fulfilling cross-
Set-aside area Hectares compliance criteria and minimizing costs
compliance criteria and minimizing costs
in different policy scenarios
Changes in the share of land abandoned
Share of agricultural land abandoned
Unused area Hectares because of unprofitable production in
because of unprofitable production
different policy scenarios
The scale of gross feed production; Changes in scale and incentive for gross
Grass area Hectares incentive for gross feed use and bovine feed production in different policy
animal production scenarios
The scales and incentive for grain Changes in scales and incentive for grain
Grain area Hectares
production production in different policy scenarios
Nitrogen balance on Nitrogen leaching potential from Changes in nitrogen leaching potential in
Kg/ha
cultivated area1 cultivated land different policy scenarios
Phosphorous balance on Phosphorous leaching potential from Changes in phosphorous leaching
Kg/ha
cultivated area1 cultivated land potential in different policy scenarios
The level of economic activities in Changes in the level of economic
Agricultural income Money unit
agriculture activities in different policy scenarios
Changes in profitability of agricultural
Profitability coefficient2 Profitability of agricultural production
production in different policy scenarios
Changes in the number of people
Social sustainability of farmers, the
Labour hours in agriculture Million hours employed in agriculture in different
working conditions of agricultural labour
policy scenarios
Changes in the economic and social
Agricultural income per
Money/hour Economic and social welfare of farmers viability of agriculture in different policy
hour of labour
scenarios
1
The balances of soil surface nitrogen and phosphorus are calculated as the difference between the total quantity of nitrogen or
phosphorus inputs entering the soil and the quantity of nitrogen or phosphorus outputs leaving the soil annually, based on the
nitrogen or phosphorus cycle.
2
The profitability coefficient is a ratio obtained by dividing agricultural surplus by the sum of the entrepreneur family's salary
requirement and the interest requirement on capital invested.

48
Indicators of sustainability at the international level
As shown above, most sustainability indicators target the farm, regional and national levels.
International-level indicators have not been investigated often, and there are no comprehensive
indices for assessment. There are sound reasons for this.
First, farm-level, regional-level and national-level indicators can be considered by
governments, decision-makers and policy-makers. Dahl (2012) notes, however that although
governments have a critical role in setting economic and social policy, and policies on land use
and infrastructure planning, their influence on investment decisions, research support and
nature conservation are not sufficient.
Second, at the farm level it is possible for actors to weigh up, trade off and agree on the criteria
for measuring trends in agricultural sustainability. But at higher levels of the hierarchy such as
the international level it becomes increasingly difficult to do this in any meaningful way.

Sustainability indicators for livestock systems

Livestock systems have inter-relationships with other agricultural systems and have an
important role in the sustainability of agricultural systems at the global level. Ripoll-Bosch et
al. (2012) assessed the sustainability of Mediterranean sheep farms with different degrees of
intensification, and used case studies to investigate four sheep meat and dairy farms with
different intensities of reproduction management. Critical points of sustainability, including
weaknesses and opportunities, were obtained through a participatory process with farmers and
technical advisers that resulted in the selection of 37 sustainability indicators; these were
classified according to systemic attributes – productivity, stability, self-reliance, adaptability
and equity – and based on the social, economic and environmental sustainability pillars (see
Table 20).

49
Table 20. List of indicators and definitions
Attribute Indicator Pillar Unit/definition
Labour profitability Economic Net margind/WU (€)
Animal profitability Economic Net margind/LUe (€)
Economic efficiency Economic Agricultural outputse/total costs (ratio)
Land productivity Economic Agricultural outputse/ha (€)
Productivity (n = 8)
Feed efficiency Economic MJ in product/MJ in feeds (ratio)
Animal productivity Economic Animal outputs/LUe (€)
Lambing rate Economic No. of lambings/LUe (%)
Animals per WU Economic LUe/WU
Farm continuity Social Continuity in the next 15 years (scale)
Off-farm income Economic Off-farm income/total income (%)
Stability, reliance,
Advisory services Social Scale
resilience (n = 5)
Facilities Social Scale (qualitative evaluation)
Wildlife conflicts Environmental Scale (qualitative evaluation)
Number of incomes Economic Number of different income sources
Main agricultural income Economic Major ag. income/total ag. income (%)
Land access problems Social Scale (qualitative evaluation)
Farmer education Social Scale
Adaptability (n = 7)
Travel time to nearest city > 10,000
Distance to markets Social
inhabitants
Communal grazing areas Environmental Dichotomic
Distance to slaughterhouse Social Travel time to nearest slaughterhouse
Net margin per WU/reference salary
Salary level Social
(%)
Satisfaction level Social Scale (farmer self assessment)
MJ from grazing/total flock
Grazing Environmental
requirements (%)
Energy efficiency Environmental MJ E inputsi/total ag. income (ratio)
Equity (n = 10) Grazing protected areas Environmental Dichotomic
Distance to services Social Travel time to closest servicesj (min)
Hired labour Social Contracted WU/total WU (%)
Leisure time Social Holiday days per WU per year (d)
Stocking rate Environmental LUe/ha of forage areas (ratio)
Local breeds Environmental Number of local breeds/varieties
Feed self-sufficiency Economic On-farm feed MJ/total feed MJ (%)
Forage self-sufficiency Economic On-farm forage/total forage MJ (%)
Indebtedness Economic Financial costsk/net margin (%)
Family labour Social Family WU/total WU (%)
Self-reliance (n = 7)
Own area Economic Owned land area/total land area (%)
Subsidies Economic Total subsidies/net margin (%)
Price per unit of product/reference
Added-value Economic
price (%)
WU working unit; LUe livestock unit (adult ewes); MJ megajoule;
d
Net Margin = agricultural outputs + subsidies – variable costs: feeding, cropping, veterinary and sanitary, machinery and building
maintenance, fuel and electricity, insurance, temporary labour – fixed costs: permanent labour, financial costs and amortization.
e
All incomes from agricultural activities excluding subsidies.
i
Fuel and electricity.
j
Health and education.
k
Debts and depreciation.

In assessing the sustainability of agro-pastoral systems, Ayantunde et al. (2011) try to provide
some indicators for the analysis of their sustainability, as shown in Table 21.

50
 Table 21. Criteria and indicators for assessing sustainability of pastoral systems in East and West Africa at household and community level
Criterion Sustainability componenta Indicator
Energy intake
Provision of food for the % children under 5 malnourished: infant mortality
Resilience
household: food security Household dependency ratio
Household income
Carrying capacity
Biomass
Pasture productivity Production, efficiency, stability, resilience Pasture quality
Species richness and diversity
Soil nutrients – organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus
Herd size
Species composition
Livestock productivity Production, efficiency, stability, resilience Milk offtake
Mortality rate
Reproductive performance
Distance livestock can move freely to pasture and water
Livestock mobility Production, resilience
Animal performance and productivity
Livelihood diversification Revenue from non-livestock based livelihoods such as commerce, remittances from migration
Production, stability, resilience
options Number of rural credit institutions
Household income
Household economy and Remittances from migrants
Production, resilience
community development Community infrastructures such as schools, primary health centres
Employment rate in the community
Emigration rate to urban areas
Pastoral tradition and
Production, resilience Proportion of the community with higher education
indigenous knowledge
Proportion of the community growing crop
a These refer to conceptual components of sustainability: production = output from the system over time; efficiency = ratios of conversion of inputs into outputs;
stability = degree of fluctuation around output trend; and resilience = speed of restoration of output trend after major disturbance.

51
Lebacq et al. (2013) argue that sustainable livestock systems must be environmentally friendly,
economically viable for farmers and socially acceptable, particularly with regard to animal
welfare, for which numerous farm-level sustainability indicators have been developed. The
main challenge is that the selection of indicators must be fully objective to ensure that
assessment subjectivity is avoided. The researchers reviewed types of sustainability indicator,
and provided guidelines for selecting indicators in a data-driven context by examining selection
criteria and methods. The selected set of indicators included: i) environmental indicators
focusing on farm practice; ii) quantitative economic indicators; and iii) quantitative social
indicators with a low degree of aggregation. Figure 4 shows the division of sustainability into
dimensions and themes, with indicators for each:
Figure 4. Identifying farm-level indicators of sustainability by considering environmental,
economic and social dimensions (Lebaq et al., 2013)

This set of themes and indicators provides appropriate, applicable, cost-effective and universal
indicators of sustainable livestock production at the farm level. The three-pillar approach
mentioned earlier – one of the most important trends in indicator-based analysis of agricultural
sustainability – was used to design the indicators.

52
The agricultural sustainability indicators in this research were:
Economic
1.Productivity:
– labour productivity
– capital productivity
– land productivity
– animal productivity
– animals per working unit
2. Profitability
– labour profitability
– return on equity
– return on assets
Social
1. Internal social sustainability
2. External social sustainability
3. Disposable income
Ecological
1. Use of inputs
– pesticides
– energy
– nutrients
2. Quality of natural resources
– soil quality
– air quality
– water quality
– biodiversity

10. Proposing data-collection methods for measuring agricultural

sustainability
In collecting data and designing measurements to assess agricultural sustainability, some
researchers worked from a methodological perspective. Van der Werf and Petit (2002), for
example, note that agricultural emissions and pollution of the environment depend primarily on
the state of the farming system, which depends largely on climatic factors such as rainfall and
temperature and on farming practices, which in turn depend on farmers' perceptions of the
environmental effects of their activities. Given the interdependence of these agro-ecological
factors, there is clearly a need for an indicator-based approach to measuring and monitoring
agriculture that aggregates a range of indicators drawn from means-based, effect-based and
perception-based measurement (see Figure 5).

53
Figure 5. Method for collecting data and measurements (Sabiha et al., 2016)

Measurement Measurement Measurement

approach basis method

Production practice Means-based

Indicator- Sustainability
Farming Effect-based
based index
system

Farmers' perception Perception-

based

Sabiha et al. (2016) observe that means-based methods are applied to the environmental
indicators related to farming practices, effects-based methods to the environmental indicators
related to farming systems and perception-based methods to the environmental indicators
related to farmers' perceptions. Applying a proportion of a recommended amount of chemical
fertilizer to assess agro-chemical risk is a means-based indicator, whereas the chemical
reactivity of soil – soil alkalinity and acidity are examples – is an effect-based indicator, and
farmers' perceptions of loss of soil fertility as a result of applying larger amounts of chemical
fertilizer constitute a perception-based indicator.
The sustainability of agriculture depends largely on farm production practices. The link is
indirect, however, because emissions to the environment depend on the state of the farming
system, which depends on farm production practices and on variable factors such as rainfall
and temperature. Hence indicators of agricultural sustainability may be based on farm
production practices – means-based – or on the effects of such practices on the farming system
or emissions to the environment – effect-based. With regard to the quality of groundwater, for
example, indicators concerned with fertilization such as amounts of nitrogen applied, or those
concerned with the planting cover crops to minimize leaching, are means-based. On the other
hand, indicators reflecting nitrate in the soil at harvest or nitrate lost to groundwater are effect-
based (Van der Werf and Petit, 2002).
Herrera et al. (2016) based on the FLINT (Farm-Level Indicators for New Topics in Policy
Evaluation) project, introduced three sustainability monitoring systems that can be useful in
collecting required data: (a) regulations-based measurement; (b) market-led measurements; and
(c) own farm measurement system. Regulations-based monitoring systems have as a purpose
compliance with government rules or policy evaluation, for example cross-compliance
mechanisms. Market-led measurement initiatives request information based on the commercial
arrangements between farmers and their customers, for example information that is requested
by traders, retailers or consumers. Farm monitoring systems include all the data and information
management (digitalized or not) managed within the farm.
The choice of method for collecting data depends on the type of data required and the subject
matter of the indicator. The following sections give some guidelines for collecting primary,
secondary or estimated data for the purpose of measuring or assessing agricultural
sustainability.

54
Primary data
When primary data are to be collected by a third party or through an assessment tool, the data
about a farm’s activities may be in the form of audit reports, certificates or similar sources.
There are many sustainability measurement tools that enable users to calculate information such
as greenhouse gas emissions (FAO, 2013).

Secondary data
Users of the Framework and Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Agricultural Sustainability
(FMMMAS) may not always be able to collect primary data for all indicators. In some cases
secondary data may be a reliable basis for making assumptions about the performance of an
enterprise: if so, the assessor should establish that the data obtained are current and published
by a reliable source. Statistics or scientific information are preferable because the data will
come from a peer-reviewed source. Because secondary data are likely to be at best of moderate
or low quality, FMMMAS users will need to make assessments on the basis of their own
judgment (FAO, 2013).

Estimates
Estimates of the performance of an enterprise may have to be used in FMMMAS; they will
generally be made by enterprise managers or staff. The FAO (2013) guidelines make the
important distinction that estimates are different from data collected in interviews: an assessor
may, for example, estimate that a farm operation uses a certain amount of fuel per year and
assess the effects of carbon emissions accordingly. In the absence of documentation or reliable
secondary data, or where it is not possible to validate tools or calculations, estimates may be
used to complete FMMMAS indicators – but they must be taken as low-quality data, and
assessors should call for improvements in data quality.

Conclusion
Society’s values and expectations of farming systems are changing and new principles have
been added to the definition of sustainability such as governance, solidarity, transmission
capital, local knowledge and, more recently, innovation (Latruffe et al., 2016). The review of
the literature shows that agricultural sustainability has been understood largely in its
environmental dimensions, that it is affected by socio-economic and biophysical conditions,
and that obstacles to sustainable agriculture are different in different countries. The FMMMAS
was developed in this context to enable assessments of the sustainability of agricultural
activities such as farming, cropping and livestock raising to be made at the global level. By
using FMMMAS, which considers sustainability in the social, economic and ecological
dimensions, investigators in different countries can apply in their measurement tools the metrics
that capture most accurately the priorities relevant to them. In short, the FMMMAS guidelines
provide an internationally comparable and operationally cost-effective way of measuring and
monitoring agricultural sustainability.
The literature on sustainability shows that the approach based on the three pillars – social,
economic and ecological – is most commonly used in assessing and measuring agricultural
sustainability, whereas FMMMAS constitutes a tool that enables national-level measurements
and evaluations of agricultural sustainability to be compared and ranked with those of other
countries.
The literature reviewed in this study of frameworks and methods for measuring and monitoring
agricultural sustainability makes it clear that the three-pillar approach, which is a major trend
in indicator-based analysis – is used for designing the indicators, a process in which features

55
such applicability, cost-effectiveness, data availability and global applicability are considered.
On the other hand, it should be kept in mind that social dimension of agricultural sustainability
is poorly investigated in literature. In this regard, social pillar of agriculture is the dimension
that requires more concentration in the future.
It should be noted the level of analysis can be a significant influence on the diagnosis of
agricultural sustainability: i) at the field level soil-management, grazing and cropping practices
will be the main determinants of sustainability; ii) at the farm level sustainable resource use is
necessary to support a family farm business; iii) at the national level there may be pressures on
the use of agricultural land from non-farming sectors; and iv) at the global level climate,
international terms of trade and the distribution of resources become important determinants.

56
References
Aarts, H.F.M., De Haan, M.H.A., Schröder, J.J., Holster, H.C., De Boer, J.A., Reijs, J.W. & Meerkerk, B. 2015.
Quantifying the environmental performance of individual dairy farms: The annual nutrient cycling
assessment. Proceedings of the 18th Symposium of the European Grassland Federation, Wageningen,
Netherlands. Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Allen, P., Van Dusen, D., Lundy, J. & Gliessman, S. 1991. Integrating social, environmental and economic issues
in sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6(01): 34–39.
Altieri, M.A. 1995. Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Ref: 630.2745 A468a 1995. Tegucigalpa,
Honduras, Instituto Hondureño del Café.
American Society of Agronomy (ASA) (1989). Decision reached on sustainable agriculture. Agron. News,
January, p. 15.
Ayantunde, A.A., De Leeuw, J., Turner, M. D. & Said, M. 2011. Challenges of assessing the sustainability of
(agro)-pastoral systems. Livestock Science 139(1): 30–43.
Barbier, E.B., Markandya, A. & Pearce, D.W. 1990. Sustainable agricultural development and project appraisal.
European Review of Agricultural Economics 17(2): 181–196.
Bastian, O., Corti, C. & Lebboroni, M. 2007. Determining environmental minimum requirements for functions
provided by agro-ecosystems. Agronomy for sustainable development 27(4): 279–291.
Bausch, J.C., Bojórquez-Tapia, L. & Eakin, H. 2014. Agro-environmental sustainability assessment using
multicriteria decision analysis and system analysis. Sustainability Science 9(3): 303–319.
Becker, B. 1997. Sustainability assessment: A review of values, concepts, and methodological approaches.
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA.
Bélanger, V., Vanasse, A., Parent, D., Allard, G. & Pellerin, D. 2012. Development of agri-environmental
indicators to assess dairy farm sustainability in Quebec, Eastern Canada. Ecological Indicators 23: 421–
430.
Benoît, C., Norris, G. A., Valdivia, S., Ciroth, A., Moberg, A., Bos, U., Prakash, S., Ugaya, C. & Beck, T. 2010.
The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: Just in time!. The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, 15(2): 156-163.
Bernard, F., Van Noordwijk, M., Luedeling, E., Villamor, G. B., Sileshi, G. W., & Namirembe, S. (2014). Social
actors and unsustainability of agriculture. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6, 155-161.
Beus, C.E. & Dunlap, R.E. 1994. Agricultural paradigms and the practice of agriculture. Rural Sociology
59(4) 620–635.
Bidwell, 0. W. 1986. Where do we stand on sustainable agriculture? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 41:
317-20.
Binder, C.R., Feola, G. & Steinberger, J.K. 2010. Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions
in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. Environmental Impact Assessment Review
30(2): 71–81.
Binder, C.R., Steinberger, J. & Schmid, A. 2008. Sustainability solution space for the Swiss milk value added
chain: Combing LCA data with socio-economic indicators. In Proceedings of the 6 th international
conference on LCA in the agri-food sector, Zurich, November 12–14
Bockstaller, C., Girardin, P.H. & Van der Werf, H.M.G. 1997. Use of agro-ecological indicators for the evaluation
of farming systems. European Journal of Agronomy 7(1): 261–270.
Bos, M.G., Van Den Bosch, H., Diemont, H., Van Keulen, H., Lahr, J., Meijerink, G. & Verhagen, A. 2007.
Quantifying the sustainability of agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 21(1): 1–15.
Bosshard, A. 2000. A methodology and terminology of sustainability assessment and its perspectives for rural
planning. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77(1): 29–41.
Bouma, J. & Droogers, P. 1998. A procedure to derive land quality indicators for sustainable agricultural
production. Geoderma 85: 103–110.
Bowers, J. 1995. Sustainability, agriculture, and agricultural policy. Environment and Planning A, 27(8): 1231-
1243.
Braat, L. 1991. The predictive meaning of sustainability indicators. In Search of indicators of sustainable
development, pp. 57–70. Springer Netherlands. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-3246-6_6#page-1
Breitschuh, T. 2009. Folgenabschätzung einer zunehmenden Bereitstellung von Bioenergieträgern auf die
Nachhaltigkeit landwirtschaftlicher Unternehmen,bewertet mit dem Kriteriensystem Nachhaltige
Landwirtschaft (KSNL). Bonn, Germany: Umwelt-Bundesamt.
Brklacich, M., Bryant, C. R. & Smit, B. 1991. Review and appraisal of concept of sustainable food production
systems. Environ. Management, 15(l): 1-14.

57
Brown, B.J., Hanson, M.E., Liverman, D.M. & Merideth, R.W. 1987. Global sustainability: Towards a definition.
Environmental Management 11(6): 713–719.
Büchs, W. 2003. Biotic indicators for biodiversity and sustainable agriculture: Introduction and background.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98(1): 1–16.
Büchs, W. 2003. Biotic indicators for biodiversity and sustainable agriculture—introduction and background.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 98(1): 1-16.
Carter, H. 0. 1989. Agricultural sustainability: An overview and research assessment. California Agriculture,
43(3): 16-18.
Castellini, C., Boggia, A., Cortina, C., Dal Bosco, A., Paolotti, L., Novelli, E. & Mugnai, C. 2012. A multi-criteria
approach for measuring the sustainability of different poultry production systems. Journal of Cleaner
Production 37: 192–201.
Chand, P., Sirohi, S. & Sirohi, S.K. 2015. Development and application of an integrated sustainability index for
small-holder dairy farms in Rajasthan, India. Ecological Indicators 56: 23–30.
Chen, S.K. 2000. The establishment of evaluation and indices system for Chinese sustainable development. World
Environment 1(1): 9.
Comer, S., Ekanem, E., Muhammad, S., Singh, S. & Tegegne, F. 1999. Sustainable and conventional farmers: A
comparison of socio-economic characteristics, attitude and beliefs. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture
15(1): 29–45.
Constance, D.H. 2009. Sustainable agriculture in the United States: A critical examination of a contested process.
Sustainability 2(1): 48–72.
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). 1989. Sustainable agricultural production:
Implications for international agricultural research. FAO and Technical Advisory Committee, CGIAR,
Rome, FAO Research and Technology Paper No. 4.
Conway, G.R. & Barbie, E.B. 1990. After the green revolution: Sustainable and equitable agricultural
development. Futures 20(6): 651–670.
COSA. 2013. The COSA measuring sustainability report: Coffee and cocoa in 12 countries. Philadelphia, PA,
USA, Committee on Sustainability Assessment.
Coteur, I., Marchand, F., Debruyne, L., Bijttebier, J., Triste, L. & Lauwers, L. 2014. Development and evaluation
of an on-demand sustainability tool in Flanders. In 11th European IFSA symposium: Farming systems
facing global challenges: Capacities and strategies, pp. 38–48. International Farming Systems
Association, Europe; Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research; Humboldt-Universität zu
Berlin.
Dahl, A. L. 2012. Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecological Indicators, 17: 14-19.
Daily, G.C. & Ehrlich, P.R. 1992. Population, sustainability and Earth's carrying capacity. BioScience 42(10) 761–
771.
Dale, V.H. & Beyeler, S.C. 2001. Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecological
Indicators 1(1): 3–10.
Dantsis, T., Douma, C., Giourga, C., Loumou, A. & Polychronaki, E.A. 2010. A methodological approach to
assess and compare the sustainability level of agricultural plant production systems. Ecological Indicators
10(2): 256–263.
David, S. 1989. Sustainable development: Theoretical construct on attainable goal? Environmental
Conservation 16: 41–48.
De Mey, K., D'Haene, K., Marchand, F., Meul, M. & Lauwers, L. 2011. Learning through stakeholder involvement
in the implementation of MOTIFS: An integrated assessment model for sustainable farming in Flanders.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9(2): 350–363.
De Olde, E. M., Oudshoorn, F. W., Sørensen, C. A., Bokkers, E. A. & De Boer, I. J. 2016. Assessing sustainability
at farm-level: Lessons learned from a comparison of tools in practice. Ecological Indicators, 66: 391-
404.
De Ridder, W., Turnpenny, J., Nilsson, M. & Von Raggamby, A. 2007. A framework for tool selection and use in
integrated assessment for sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management 9(04): 423–441.
DeLonge, M. S., Miles, A. & Carlisle, L. 2016. Investing in the transition to sustainable agriculture. Environmental
Science & Policy, 55: 266-273.
Desa, U. 2007. Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies, New York: United Nations
Publications.
Douglass, G. K. (1984). The meanings of agricultural sustainability. In Agricultural sustainability in a changing
world order (G. K. Douglass, Ed.), pp. 3–30. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Dunlap, R.E., Beus, C.E., Howell, R.E. & Waud, J. 1993. What is sustainable agriculture? An empirical
examination of faculty and farmer definitions. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 3(1): 5–41.

58
Elsaesser, M., Jilg, T., Herrmann, K., Boonen, J., Debruyne, L., Laidlaw, A.S. & Elgersma, A. 2015. Quantifying
sustainability of dairy farms with the DAIRYMAN sustainability-index. European Grassland
Federation. 20: 367-376.
FAO. 1990. Sustainable Agricultural Resources Development. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/sustainability-assessments-safa/en/
FAO. 2013. Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems: Guidelines 3.0. Rome.
Farrell, A. & Hart, M. 1998. What does sustainability really mean? The search for useful indicators. Environment
Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 40(9): 4–31.
Farshad, A., & Zinck, J.A. 1993. Seeking agricultural sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 47(1): 1–12.
Feher, I. & Beke, J. 2013. Rationale of sustainable agriculture. Iustum Aequum Salutare 9: 73.
Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E.M., Lehmann, A. & Traverso, M. 2010. Towards life cycle sustainability assessment.
Sustainability 2(10): 3309–3322.
Francis, C. A. & Youngberg, G. 1990. Sustainable agriculture - an overview. In Sustainable Agriculture in
Temperate Zones, eds C. A. Francis, C. B. Flora & L. D. King. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. l-23.
Francis, C. A., Sander, D. & Martin, A. 1987. Search for a sustainable agriculture: Reduced inputs and increased
profits. Crops and Soils, 39(9): 12-14.
Frater, P. & Franks, J. 2013. Measuring agricultural sustainability at the farm-level: A pragmatic approach.
International Journal of Agricultural Management 2(4): 207–225.
Gafsi, M. & Favreau, J.L. 2010. Appropriate method to assess the sustainability of organic farming systems. Ninth
European IFSA symposium, pp. 4–7.
Gafsi, M., Legagneux, B., Nguyen, G. & Robin, P. 2006. Towards sustainable farming systems: Effectiveness and
deficiency of the French procedure of sustainable agriculture. Agricultural Systems 90(1): 226–242.
Gallopı´n, G., 1997. Indicators and their use: information for decision making. In Moldan, B., Billharz, S. (Eds.),
Sustainability indicators. Report on the Project on Indicators of Sustainable Development. Wiley,
Chichester.
Gasparatos, A. 2010. Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools and their implications. Journal
of Environmental Management 91(8): 1613–1622.
Gerdessen, J.C. & Pascucci, S. 2013. Data envelopment analysis of sustainability indicators of European
agricultural systems at regional level. Agricultural Systems 118: 78–90.
Gerrard, C.L., Smith, L.G., Pearce, B., Padel, S., Hitchings, R. & Cooper, N. 2012. Public goods and farming. In
Farming for food and water security, pp. 1–22. Springer, Netherlands.
Goldman, A. 1995. Threats to sustainability in African agriculture: Searching for appropriate paradigms. Human
Ecology 23(3): 291–334.
Gomez, A.A., Kelly, D.E., Syers, J.K. & Coughlan, K.J. 1996. Measuring sustainability of agricultural systems at
the farm level. Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. SSSA special publication no. 49. Available at:
https://www.animalsciencepublications.org/publications/books/tocs/sssaspecialpubl/methodsforasses.
Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Riesgo, L. 2008. Alternative approaches on constructing a composite indicator to measure
agricultural sustainability. Seville, Spain, 107th EAAE seminar.
Gómez-Limón, J.A. & Sanchez-Fernandez, G. 2010. Empirical evaluation of agricultural sustainability using
composite indicators. Ecological Economics 69(5) 1062–1075.
Gowda, M.C. & Jayaramaiah, K.M. 1998. Comparative evaluation of rice production systems for their
sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 69(1): 1–9.
Gray, R. (1991). Economic measures of sustainability. Can. J. Agric. Econ., 39, 627-35.
Guttenstein, E., Scialabba, N.E.H., Loh, J. & Courville, S. 2010. A conceptual framework for progressing towards
sustainability in the agriculture and food sector. FAO/ISEAL Alliance discussion paper. Rome.
Haas, G., Wetterich, F. & Geier, U. 2000. Life cycle assessment framework in agriculture on the farm level. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 5(6): 345–348.
Halberg, N., Van der Werf, H.M., Basset-Mens, C., Dalgaard, R. & De Boer, I.J. 2005. Environmental assessment
tools for the evaluation and improvement of European livestock production systems. Livestock
Production Science 96(1): 33–50.
Hamblin, A. 1992. How do we know when agricultural systems are sustainable? In Environmental Indicators for
Sustainable Agriculture. Report on a national workshop, 28-29 November 1991, ed. A. Hamblin. Bureau
of Rural Resources, Land and Water Resource Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research
Corporation, Canberra, Australia, p. 90.
Häni, F., Braga, F., Stämpfli, A., Keller, T., Fischer, M. & Porsche, H. 2003. RISE: A tool for holistic sustainability
assessment at the farm level. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 6(4): 78–90.
Häni, F., Braga, F., Stämpfli, A., Keller, T., Fischer, M. & Porsche, H. 2003. RISE: A tool for holistic sustainability
assessment at the farm level. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 6(4): 78-90.

59
Häni, F., Gerber, T., Stämpfli, A., Porsche, H., Thalmann, C. & Studer, C. 2006. An evaluation of tea farms in
southern India with the sustainability assessment tool RISE. First symposium of the International Forum
on Assessing Sustainability in Agriculture, vol. 16.
Hansen, J.W. 1996. Is agricultural sustainability a useful concept? Agricultural Systems 50(2): 117–143.
Hat-wood, R. R. 1990. A history of sustainable agriculture. In Sustainable agricultural systems, eds C. A.
Edwards, R. Lal, P. Madden, R. H. Miller & G. House. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny,
Iowa, pp. 3-19.
Hauptli H, Katz D, Thomas BR. & Goodman RM. 1990. Biotechnology and crop breeding for sustainable
agriculture. In Edwards CA, Lal R, Madden P, Miller RH, House G, editors. Sustainable Agricultural
Systems Soil and Water Conservation Society: Ankeny, Iowa. 141–156.
Hayati, D., Ranjbar, Z. & Karami, E. 2010. Measuring agricultural sustainability. In: Biodiversity, Biofuels,
Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture, pp. 73–100. Springer Netherlands.
Herrera, B., Gerster-Bentaya, M. & Knierim, A. 2016. Stakeholders’ perceptions of sustainability measurement at
farm level. Studies in Agricultural Economics, 118: 131-137.
Herzog, F. & Gotsch, N. 1998. Assessing the sustainability of smallholder tree crop production in the tropics: A
methodological outline. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 11(4): 13–37.
Hodge, I. 1993. Sustainability: Putting principles into practice. An application to agricultural systems. Paper
presented to `Rural Economy and Society Study Group', Royal Holloway College, December.
Horne, J. E. & McDermott, M. 2001. The next green revolution: Essential steps to a healthy, sustainable
agriculture. Food Products Press.
Horrigan, L., Robert S.L. & Walker, P. 2002. How sustainable agriculture can address the environment and human
health harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(5) 445–456.
Horrigan, L., Robert S.L. & Walker, P. 2002. How sustainable agriculture can address the environment and human
health harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(5): 445–456.
Hřebíček, J., Valtinyová, S., Křen, J., Hodinka, M., Trenz, O. & Marada, P. 2013. Sustainability indicators:
Development and application for the agriculture sector. In Sustainability appraisal: Quantitative methods
and mathematical techniques for environmental performance evaluation, pp. 63–102. Springer, Berlin
and Heidelberg.
Ikerd, J. 1993. Two related but distinctly different concepts: Organic farming and sustainable agriculture. Small
Farm Today 10(1): 30–31.
Ingels, C., Campbell, D., George, M.R. & Bradford, E. 1997. What is sustainable agriculture? Available at:
www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/concept.htm
Ion, R.A. 2011. Monitoring sustainable agricultural development in Romania. Review of International
Comparative Management 12(5) 940–947.
Izac, A-M.N. & Swift, M.J. 1994. On agricultural sustainability and its measurement in small-scale farming in
sub-Saharan Africa. Ecological Economics 1: 105–125.
Jane Dillon, E., Hennessy, T., Buckley, C., Donnellan, T., Hanrahan, K., Moran, B. & Ryan, M. 2016. Measuring
progress in agricultural sustainability to support policy-making. International Journal of Agricultural
Sustainability 14(1) 31–44.
Jodha, N.S. 1990. Sustainability of mountain agriculture: some imperatives. Entwicklung und Landlicher
Raum 3(90) 16–19.
Karami, E. 1995. Agricultural extension: The question of sustainable development in Iran. Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture 5(1/2) 61–72.
Keeney, D. R.1989. Toward a sustainable agriculture: Need for clarification of concepts and terminology.
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 4(3-4): 101-5.
Keulen, H.V., Van Ittersum, M.K. & Leffelaar, P.A. 2005. Multiscale methodological framework to derive criteria
and indicators for sustainability evaluation of peasant natural resource management systems.
Environment, Development and Sustainability 7(1): 51–69.
King, L.O. 2016. Functional sustainability indicators. Ecological Indicators 66: 121–131.
Koeijer, T.J.D., Wossink, G.A.A., Struik, P.C. & Renkema, J.A. 2002. Measuring agricultural sustainability in
terms of efficiency: the case of Dutch sugar beet growers. Journal of Environmental Management 66: 9–
17. Available at: http://www.idealibrary.com
Latruffe, L., Diazabakana, A., Bockstaller, C., Desjeux, Y., Finn, J., Kelly, E., Ryan, M. & Uthes, S. 2016.
Measurement of sustainability in agriculture: A review of indicators. Studies in Agricultural Economics,
118: 123-130.
Le Rohellec, C. & Mouchet, C. 2008. Efficacité économique de systèmes laitiers herbagers en agriculture durable
(RAD): une comparaison avec le RICA. Fourrages 193: 107–113.
Leach, K., Gerrard, C.L. & Padel, S. 2013. Rapid sustainability assessment of organic and low-input farming
across Europe and identification of research needs. Available at: http://orgprints.org/22721/

60
Lebacq, T., Baret, P.V. & Stilmant, D. 2013. Sustainability indicators for livestock farming. A review. Agronomy
for Sustainable Development 33(2) 311–327.
Lehtonen, H., Aakkula, J. & Rikkonen, P. 2005. Alternative agricultural policy scenarios, sector modelling and
indicators: a sustainability assessment. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 26(4): 63–93.
Lehtonen, H., Aakkula, J. & Rikkonen, P. 2005. Alternative agricultural policy scenarios, sector modelling and
indicators: A sustainability assessment. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 26(4): 63-93.
Lewis, K.A. & Bardon, K.S. 1998. A computer-based informal environmental management system for agriculture.
Environmental Modelling and Software 13(2) 123–137.
Lockeretz, W. 1988. Open questions in sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative
Agriculture 3(04) 174–181.
López-Ridaura, S., Masera, O. & Astier, M. 2002. Evaluating the sustainability of complex socio-environmental
systems. The MESMIS framework. Ecological Indicators 2(1): 135–148.
Lynam, J.K. & Herdt, R.W. 1989. Sense and sustainability: sustainability as an objective in international
agricultural research. Agricultural Economics 3(4): 381–398.
Lyson, T.A. 1998. Environmental, economic and social aspects of sustainable agriculture in American Land Grant
Universities. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 12(2,3) 119–129.
MacRae, R.J., Hill, S.B., Henning, J. & Mehuys, G.R. 1989. Agricultural science and sustainable agriculture: A
review of the existing scientific barriers to sustainable food production and potential solutions. Biological
Agriculture and Horticulture 6(3) 173–219.
Marchand, F., Debruyne, L., Triste, L., Gerrard, C., Padel, S. & Lauwers, L. 2014. Key characteristics for tool
choice in indicator-based sustainability assessment at farm level. Ecology and Society 19(3). Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06876-190346
Marta-Costa, A.A. & Silva, E. 2013. Approaches for sustainable farming systems assessment. In: Methods and
Procedures for Building Sustainable Farming Systems, pp. 21–29. Springer Netherlands.
Meul, M., Van Passel, S., Nevens, F., Dessein, J., Rogge, E., Mulier, A. & Van Hauwermeiren, A. 2008. MOTIFS:
a monitoring tool for integrated farm sustainability. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28(2): 321–
332.
Monteith, J. L. 1990. Can sustainability be quantified? Indian Journal of Dryland Agricultural Research and
Development. 5(1-2), 1-5.
Moxey, A., 1998. Cross-cutting issues in developing agri-environmental idicators. Paper Presented At OECD
Workshop On Agri-Environmental Indicators Plenary Session 1, York, 22–25, 1998.
Nambiar, K.K.M., Gupta, A.P., Fu, Q. & Li, S. 2001. Biophysical, chemical and socio-economic indicators for
assessing agricultural sustainability in the Chinese coastal zone. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 87(2) 209–214.
Neher, D. 1992. Ecological sustainability in agricultural systems: definition and measurement. Journal of
Sustainable Agriculture 2(3) 51–61.
Nemecek, T., Dubois, D., Huguenin-Elie, O. & Gaillard, G. 2011. Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems:
integrated and organic farming. Agricultural Systems 104(3): 217–232.
Ness, B., Anderberg, S. & Olsson, L. 2010. Structuring problems in sustainability science: the multi-level DPSIR
framework. Geoforum 41(3): 479–488.
Nijkamp, P. & Vreeker, R. 2000. Sustainability assessment of development scenarios: methodology and
application to Thailand. Ecological Economics 33: 7–27.
Norman, D., Janke, R., Freyenberger, S., Schurle, B. & Kok, H. 1998. Defining and implementing sustainable
agriculture. Kansas Sustainable Agriculture Series, no. 1. Available at:
http://www.soc.iastate.edu/Sapp/soc235susag.pdf
OECD. 1999. Environmental indicators for agriculture. Issues and Design. Paris.
OECD. 2001. Environmental indicators for agriculture: Methods and Results. Paris.
Pacini, C., Lazzerini, G., Migliorini, P. & Vazzana, C. 2009. An indicator-based framework to evaluate
sustainability of farming systems: review of applications in Tuscany. Italian Journal of Agronomy
4(1): 23–40.
Pacini, G.C., Lazzerini, G. & Vazzana, C. 2011. AESIS: a support tool for the evaluation of sustainability of
agroecosystems. Example of applications to organic and integrated farming systems in Tuscany, Italy.
Italian Journal of Agronomy 6(1): 3.
Pannell, D.J. & Glenn, N.A. 2000. Framework for the economic evaluation and selection of sustainability
indicators in agriculture. Ecological Economics 33: 135–149.
Perlas, N. (n.d. ca. 1988). The Sustainable agriculture movement: Healing human societies and the earth with a
new science and philosophy of nature. Occasional Paper No. 1, Center for Alternative Development
Initiatives, Quezon City, Philippines.
Pervanchon, F. 2004. L’arbre de l’exploitation agricole durable: construire en groupe son projet d’agriculture
durable. Travaux et Innovations 110: 5–8.

61
Pope, J. 2006. Editorial: What's so special about sustainability assessment? Journal of Environmental Assessment
Policy and Management 8(03): v–x.
Pope, J., Annandale, D. & Morrison-Saunders, A. 2004. Conceptualizing sustainability assessment. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review 24(6): 595–616.
Poppe, K. J., Vrolijk, H. C. J., Dolman, M. A. & Silvis, H. J. 2016. FLINT Farm-level Indicators for New Topics
in policy evaluation: An introduction. Studies in Agricultural Economics, 118(3): 116-122.
Pottiez, E., Lescoat, P. & Bouvarel, I. 2012. AVIBIO: a method to assess the sustainability of the organic poultry
industry. Tenth European International Farming Systems Association symposium, Aarhus, Denmark.
Praneetvatakul, S., Janekarnkij, P., Potchanasin, C. & Prayoonwong, K. 2001. Assessing the sustainability of
agriculture: a case of Mae Chaem Catchment, northern Thailand. Environment International 27: 103–
109.
Pretty, J. & Hine, R. 2000. The promising spread of sustainable agriculture in Asia. Natural Resources Forum
24(2): 107–121).
Pretty, J. 1995. Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainability and Self-Reliance.
Washington DC, Joseph Henry Press.
Pretty, J. 2008. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 363(1491): 447–465.
Pretty, J. N. 1999. Regenerating agriculture: Policies and practices for sustainability and self-reliance.
Washington: Joseph Henry Press.
Pretty, J., Smith, G., Goulding, K.W.T., Groves, S.J., Henderson, I., Hine, R.E. & Walter, C. 2008. Multi-year
assessment of Unilever's progress towards agricultural sustainability: indicators, methodology and pilot
farm results. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 6(1): 37–62.
Qiu, H.J., Zhu, W.B., Wang, H.B. & Cheng, X. 2007. Analysis and design of agricultural sustainability indicators
system. Agricultural Sciences in China 6(4): 475–486.
Rao, N.H. & Rogers, P.P. 2006. Assessment of agricultural sustainability. Current Science 91(4): 439–448.
Rasul, G. & Thapa, G.B. 2004. Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural systems in Bangladesh:
An assessment based on environmental, economic and social perspectives. Agricultural Systems
79(3): 327–351.
Rasure, K.A. 2010. Sustainable agricultural development. New Delhi, Oxford Books Company.
Reganold, J.P., Papendick, R.I. & Parr, J.F. 1990. Sustainable agriculture. Scientific American 262(6): 112–120.
Reytar, K., Hanson, C. & Henninger, N. 2014. Indicators of sustainable agriculture: A scoping analysis. In Working
Paper: Instalment 6 of Creating a Sustainable Food Future. Washington DC, World Resources Institute.
Rezaei-Moghaddam, K. 1997. Agricultural extension, poverty, and sustainable agriculture in Behbahan county.
M.Sc. Thesis, University of Shiraz, Iran.
Rigby, D. & Cáceres, D. 2001. Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agricultural Systems
68(1): 21–40.
Rigby, D., Woodhouse, P., Young, T. & Burton, M. 2001. Constructing a farm-level indicator of sustainable
agricultural practice. Ecological Economics 39(3): 463–478.
Ripoll-Bosch, R., Díez-Unquera, B., Ruiz, R., Villalba, D., Molina, E., Joy, M. & Bernués, A. 2012. An integrated
sustainability assessment of Mediterranean sheep farms with different degrees of intensification.
Agricultural Systems 105(1): 46–56.
Roboredo, D., Bergamasco, S.M. & Bleich, M.E. 2016. Aggregate index of social–environmental sustainability to
evaluate the social–environmental quality in a watershed in the Southern Amazon. Ecological Indicators
63: 337–345.
Rodrigues, G.S., Rodrigues, I.A., De Almeida Buschinelli, C.C. & De Barros, I. 2010. Integrated farm
sustainability assessment for the environmental management of rural activities. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 30(4): 229–239.
Ronchi, B. & Nardone, A. 2003. Contribution of organic farming to increase sustainability of Mediterranean small
ruminant’s livestock systems. Livestock Production Science 80(1): 17–31.
Roy, R. & Chan, N.W. 2012. An assessment of agricultural sustainability indicators in Bangladesh: review and
synthesis. The Environmentalist 32(1): 99–110.
Roy, R., Chan, N.W. & Rainis, R. 2013. Development of indicators for sustainable rice farming in Bangladesh: a
case study with participative multi-stakeholder involvement. World Applied Sciences Journal 22(5): 672–
682.
Ruttan, V.W. 1988. Sustainability is not enough. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 3(2-3): 128–130.
Sabiha, N. E., Salim, R., Rahman, S. & Rola-Rubzen, M. F. 2016. Measuring environmental sustainability in
agriculture: A composite environmental impact index approach. Journal of Environmental Management,
166: 84-93.
Saifi, B. & Drake, L. 2008. A coevolutionary model for promoting agricultural sustainability. Ecological
Economics 65(1): 24–34.

62
Sala, S., Ciuffo, B. & Nijkamp, P. 2015. A systemic framework for sustainability assessment. Ecological
Economics 119: 314–325.
Saling, P., Maisch, R., Silvani, M. & König, N. 2005. Assessing the Environmental-Hazard Potential for Life
Cycle Assessment, Eco-Efficiency and SEE balance. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 10(5): 364–371.
Saltiel, J., Baunder, J.W. & Palakovich, S. 1994. Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices: diffusion, farm
structure and profitability. Rural Sociology 59(2): 333–347.
Sands, G.R. & Podmore, H. 2000. A generalized environmental sustainability index for agricultural systems.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 79: 29–41.
Schader, C., Grenz, J., Meier, M.S. & Stolze, M. 2014. Scope and precision of sustainability assessment
approaches to food systems. Ecology and Society 19(3).
Scholz, R.W. & Tietje, O. 2002. Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative
knowledge. Sage, California: Thousand Oaks.
Senanayake, R. 1991. Sustainable agriculture: definitions and parameters for measurement. Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture 4(1): 7–28.
Simon, D. 1989. Sustainable development: Theoretical construct or attainable goal? Environmental Conservation
16(01): 41–48.
Simoncini, R. 2009. Developing an integrated approach to enhance the delivering of environmental goods and
services by agro-ecosystems. Regional Environmental Change 9(3): 153–167.
Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K. & Dikshit, A.K. 2012. An overview of sustainability assessment
methodologies. Ecological Indicators 15(1): 281–299.
Smith, C.S. & McDonald, G.T. 1997. Assessing the sustainability of agriculture at the planning stage. Journal of
Environmental Management 52(1): 15–37.
Spedding, C. 2012. An introduction to agricultural systems. Netherlands: Springer Science and Business Media.
Speelman, E.N., López-Ridaura, S., Colomer, N.A., Astier, M. & Masera, O.R. 2007. Ten years of sustainability
evaluation using the MESMIS framework: Lessons learned from its application in 28 Latin American
case studies. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 14(4): 345–361.
Summit, J. 2002. World summit on sustainable development. Johannesburg, Washington: United Nation.
Swaminathan, M.S. 2000. An evergreen revolution. Biologist 47(2): 85–89.
Sydorovych, O. & Wossink, A. 2008. The meaning of agricultural sustainability: evidence from a conjoint choice
survey. Agricultural Systems 98(1): 10–20.
Szakál, F. 1998. A hazai vidékfejlesztés rendszerének EU-konform kialakítási lehetőségei I. A vidékfejlesztés
szervezési és ökonómiai problémái, a mezőgazdasági és a vidékfejlesztési politikák összefüggései, Zöld
Belépő, MTA Stratégiai Kutatási Program, Gödöllő, 95.
Tait, J. & Morris, D. 2000. Sustainable development of agricultural systems: competing objectives and critical
limits. Futures 32(3): 247–260.
Taylor, D.C., Mohamed, Z.A., Shamsudin, M.N., Mohayidin, M.G. & Chiew, E.F. 1993. Creating a farmer
sustainability index: a Malaysian case study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 8(04): 175–
184.
Ten Napel, J., Van der Veen, A.A., Oosting, S.J. & Koerkamp, P.G. 2011. A conceptual approach to design
livestock production systems for robustness to enhance sustainability. Livestock Science 139(1): 150–
160.
Thiollet-Scholtus, M. & Bockstaller, C. 2015. Using indicators to assess the environmental impacts of wine
growing activity: the INDIGO® method. European Journal of Agronomy 62: 13–25.
Tolba, M.K. 2013. Sustainable development: Constraints and opportunities. London: Butterworth. Elsevier.
Tzilivakis, J. & Lewis, K.A. 2004. The development and use of farm‐level indicators in England. Sustainable
Development 12(2): 107–120.
United Nations Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development. 1996. Indicators of sustainable
development: Framework and methodologies. New York.
United Nations Department of Economic. (2007). Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and
methodologies. United Nations Publications.
UN-SDSN (United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network), 2014b. Monitoring the performance of
agriculture and food systems. GSDR 2015 Brief. UN-SDSN.
Van Asseldonk, M., Tzouramani, I., Ge, L. & Vrolijk, H. 2016. Adoption of risk management strategies in
European agriculture. Studies in Agricultural Economics, 118(3): 154-162.
Van Calker, K.J., Berentsen, P.B.M., Romero, C., Giesen, G.W.J. & Huirne, R.B.M. 2006. Development and
application of a multi-attribute sustainability function for Dutch dairy farming systems. Ecological
Economics 57(4): 640–658.
Van Cauwenbergh, N., Biala, K., Bielders, C., Brouckaert, V., Franchois, L., Cidad, V.G., Hermy, M., Mathijs,
E., Muys, B., Reijnders, J., Sauvenier, X., Valckx, J., Vanclooster, M., Der Veken, B.V., Wauters, E. &

63
 Peeters, A. 2007. SAFE: a hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 120: 229–242.
Van der Meulen, H., van Asseldonk, M. & Ge, L. 2016. The state of innovation in European agriculture: Innovators
are few and far between. Studies in Agricultural Economics, 118(3): 172-174.
Van der Werf, H. M. & Petit, J. 2002. Evaluation of the environmental impact of agriculture at the farm level: A
comparison and analysis of 12 indicator-based methods. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 93(1):
131-145.
Van Passel, S., Nevens, F., Mathijs, E. & Van Huylenbroeck, G. 2007. Measuring farm sustainability and
explaining differences in sustainable efficiency. Ecological Economics 62(1): 149–161.
Van Pham, L. & Smith, C. 2014. Drivers of agricultural sustainability in developing countries: a review.
Environment Systems and Decisions 34(2): 326–341.
Vecchione, G. 2010. EU Rural Policy: Proposal and Application of an Agricultural Sustainability Index. Available
at: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/27032/
Velten, S., Leventon, J., Jager, N. & Newig, J. 2015. What is sustainable agriculture? A systematic review.
Sustainability 7(6): 7833–7865.
Viglizzo, E.F., Frank, F., Bernardos, J., Buschiazzo, D.E. & Cabo, S. 2006. A rapid method for assessing the
environmental performance of commercial farms in the pampas of Argentina. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment 117(1-3): 109–134.
Von Wiren-Lehr, S. 2001. Sustainability in agriculture: an evaluation of principal goal-oriented concepts to close
the gap between theory and practice. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 84(2):115–129.
Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Bello, P., Linares, A.C., Falfán, I.S.L., Garcıa, J.M. & Guerrero, M.G.S. 1999.
National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics
29(3): 375–390.
Waney, N. F. L., Soemarno, Y., Yuliaty, Y. & Polii, b. 2014. Developing indicators of sustainable agriculture at
farm level. Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, 7 (2): 42-53.
Webster, J.P.G. 1997. Assessing the economic consequences of sustainability in agriculture. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 64(2): 95–102.
Webster, P. 1999. The challenge of sustainability at the farm level: presidential address. Journal of Agricultural
Economics 50(3): 371–387.
Wiek, A. & Binder, C. 2005. Solution spaces for decision-making—a sustainability assessment tool for city-
regions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25(6): 589–608.
Zahm, F., Viaux, P., Vilain, L., Girardin, P. & Mouchet, C. 2008. Assessing farm sustainability with the IDEA
method: from the concept of agriculture sustainability to case studies on farms. Sustainable Development
16(4): 271–281.
Zhen, L. & Routray, J.K. 2003. Operational indicators for measuring agricultural sustainability in developing
countries. Environmental Management 32(1): 34–46.
Zhen, L., Routray, J.K., Zoebisch, M.A., Chen, G., Xie, G. & Cheng, S. 2005. Three dimensions of sustainability
of farming practices in the North China Plain: a case study from Ningjin county of Shandong province,
China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 105(3): 507–522.
Zhen, L., Zoebisch, M.A., Chen, G. & Feng, Z. 2006. Sustainability of farmers' soil fertility management practices:
a case study in the North China Plain. Journal of Environmental Management 79(4): 409–419.

64