IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i16p6617-d399533.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph MacPherson

    (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Muencheberg, Germany)

  • Carsten Paul

    (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Muencheberg, Germany)

  • Katharina Helming

    (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Muencheberg, Germany
    Faculty of Landscape Management and Nature Conservation, University for Sustainable Development (HNEE), Schickler Straße 5, 16225 Eberswalde, Germany)

Abstract

A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level assessment tools and models converge on these new paradigms of sustainability is important for drawing comparison on sustainability performances of farming systems, conducting meta-analyses and upscaling local responses to global driving forces. In this study, a coverage analysis was performed for several farm-level sustainability assessment (SA) tools (SAFA, RISE, KSNL, DLG) and models (MODAM, MONICA, APSIM), in regard to their potential for incorporating ES and contribution to attaining the SDGs. Lists of agricultural-relevant CICES classes and SDG targets were compiled and matched against the indicators of the tools and models. The results showed that SAFA possessed the most comprehensive coverage of ES and SDGs, followed by RISE and KSNL. In comparison to models, SA tools were observed to have a higher degree of potential for covering ES and SDGs, which was attributed to larger and broader indicators sets. However, this study also suggested that, overall, current tools and models do not sufficiently articulate the concept of ecosystem services.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph MacPherson & Carsten Paul & Katharina Helming, 2020. "Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:16:p:6617-:d:399533
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6617/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6617/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Olde, Evelien M. & Bokkers, Eddie A.M. & de Boer, Imke J.M., 2017. "The Choice of the Sustainability Assessment Tool Matters: Differences in Thematic Scope and Assessment Results," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 77-85.
    2. Evelien M. de Olde & Henrik Moller & Fleur Marchand & Richard W. McDowell & Catriona J. MacLeod & Marion Sautier & Stephan Halloy & Andrew Barber & Jayson Benge & Christian Bockstaller & Eddie A. M. B, 2017. "When experts disagree: the need to rethink indicator selection for assessing sustainability of agriculture," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1327-1342, August.
    3. Nendel, C. & Berg, M. & Kersebaum, K.C. & Mirschel, W. & Specka, X. & Wegehenkel, M. & Wenkel, K.O. & Wieland, R., 2011. "The MONICA model: Testing predictability for crop growth, soil moisture and nitrogen dynamics," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(9), pages 1614-1625.
    4. Zander, P. & Kachele, H., 1999. "Modelling multiple objectives of land use for sustainable development," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 311-325, March.
    5. Maria G. Lampridi & Claus G. Sørensen & Dionysis Bochtis, 2019. "Agricultural Sustainability: A Review of Concepts and Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-27, September.
    6. Luz Maria Castro & Fabian Härtl & Santiago Ochoa & Baltazar Calvas & Leonardo Izquierdo & Thomas Knoke, 2018. "Integrated bio-economic models as tools to support land-use decision making: a review of potential and limitations," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 183-211, July.
    7. Geijzendorffer, Ilse R. & Cohen-Shacham, Emmanuelle & Cord, Anna F. & Cramer, Wolfgang & Guerra, Carlos & Martín-López, Berta, 2017. "Ecosystem services in global sustainability policies," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 40-48.
    8. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
    9. Wood, Sylvia L.R. & Jones, Sarah K. & Johnson, Justin A. & Brauman, Kate A. & Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca & Fremier, Alexander & Girvetz, Evan & Gordon, Line J. & Kappel, Carrie V. & Mandle, Lisa & Mullig, 2018. "Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the Sustainable Development Goals," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 70-82.
    10. McCown, R. L. & Hammer, G. L. & Hargreaves, J. N. G. & Holzworth, D. P. & Freebairn, D. M., 1996. "APSIM: a novel software system for model development, model testing and simulation in agricultural systems research," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 255-271.
    11. Malinga, Rebecka & Gordon, Line J. & Jewitt, Graham & Lindborg, Regina, 2015. "Mapping ecosystem services across scales and continents – A review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 57-63.
    12. Dale, Virginia H. & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 286-296, December.
    13. Minx, Jan C. & Callaghan, Max & Lamb, William F. & Garard, Jennifer & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2017. "Learning about climate change solutions in the IPCC and beyond," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 252-259.
    14. Ness, Barry & Urbel-Piirsalu, Evelin & Anderberg, Stefan & Olsson, Lennart, 2007. "Categorising tools for sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 498-508, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Evangelos Alexandropoulos & Vasileios Anestis & Federico Dragoni & Anja Hansen & Saoirse Cummins & Donal O’Brien & Barbara Amon & Thomas Bartzanas, 2023. "Decision Support Systems Based on Gaseous Emissions and Their Impact on the Sustainability Assessment at the Livestock Farm Level: An Evaluation from the User’s Side," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-29, August.
    2. Alexandra Doernberg & Annette Piorr & Ingo Zasada & Dirk Wascher & Ulrich Schmutz, 2022. "Sustainability assessment of short food supply chains (SFSC): developing and testing a rapid assessment tool in one African and three European city regions," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 885-904, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Norman Siebrecht, 2020. "Sustainable Agriculture and Its Implementation Gap—Overcoming Obstacles to Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-27, May.
    2. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    3. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    4. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    5. Mostafa Shaaban & Carmen Schwartz & Joseph Macpherson & Annette Piorr, 2021. "A Conceptual Model Framework for Mapping, Analyzing and Managing Supply–Demand Mismatches of Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Jones, Sarah K. & Boundaogo, Mansour & DeClerck, Fabrice A. & Estrada-Carmona, Natalia & Mirumachi, Naho & Mulligan, Mark, 2019. "Insights into the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being in reservoir landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    7. Wang, Haoluan & Swallow, Brent M., 2017. "Linking Agricultural Land Conservation and Provision of Ecosystem Services: A Choice Experiment Approach," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258537, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    9. Beardmore, Leslie & Heagney, Elizabeth & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2019. "Complementary land use in the Richmond River catchment: Evaluating economic and environmental benefits," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    10. Elaine Aparecida Rodrigues & Maurício Lamano Ferreira & Amanda Rodrigues de Carvalho & José Oscar William Vega Bustillos & Rodrigo Antonio Braga Moraes Victor & Marcelo Gomes Sodré & Delvonei Alves de, 2022. "Land, Water, and Climate Issues in Large and Megacities under the Lens of Nuclear Science: An Approach for Achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG11)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-19, October.
    11. Lhermie, Guillaume & Wernli, Didier & Jørgensen, Peter Søgaard & Kenkel, Donald & Lin Lawell, C.-Y. Cynthia & Tauer, Loren William & Gröhn, Yrjo Tapio, 2019. "Tradeoffs between resistance to antimicrobials in public health and their use in agriculture: Moving towards sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Dominati, Estelle & Patterson, Murray & Mackay, Alec, 2010. "A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1858-1868, July.
    13. Trautman, Dawn & Jeffrey, Scott R. & Unterschultz, James R., 2012. "Beneficial Management Practice (BMP) Adoption -- Direct Farm Cost/Benefit Tradeoffs," Project Report Series 139638, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    14. repec:eee:ecoser:v:36:y:2019:i:c:p:- is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Weitzman, Jenny, 2019. "Applying the ecosystem services concept to aquaculture: A review of approaches, definitions, and uses," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 194-206.
    16. Judith Janker & Stefan Mann, 2020. "Understanding the social dimension of sustainability in agriculture: a critical review of sustainability assessment tools," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 1671-1691, March.
    17. Varela, Elsa & Kallas, Zein, 2022. "Extensive Mediterranean agroecosystems and their linked traditional breeds: Societal demand for the conservation of the Majorcan black pig," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    18. Molnar, Jennifer L. & Kubiszewski, Ida, 2012. "Managing natural wealth: Research and implementation of ecosystem services in the United States and Canada," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 45-55.
    19. Lairez, Juliette & Lopez-Ridaura, Santiago & Jourdain, Damien & Falconnier, Gatien N. & Lienhard, Pascal & Striffler, Bruno & Syfongxay, Chanthaly & Affholder, François, 2020. "Context matters: Agronomic field monitoring and participatory research to identify criteria of farming system sustainability in South-East Asia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    20. Uta Schirpke & Lukas Egarter Vigl & Erich Tasser & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2019. "Analyzing Spatial Congruencies and Mismatches between Supply, Demand and Flow of Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, April.
    21. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:16:p:6617-:d:399533. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.