IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/jhimwo/298449.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Leistungen des ökologischen Landbaus für Umwelt und Gesellschaft. 2. überarbeitete und ergänzte Auflage

Author

Listed:
  • Sanders, Jürn
  • Heß, Jürgen

Abstract

Organic farming is considered to be a sustainable land use system and is therefore specifically supported by policy. Although the interactions between organic farming and the resulting socially relevant environmental benefits have received increasingly widespread recognition in science and politics, the potential of organic farming to solve the environmental and resource challenges of our time are still assessed differently. Against this background, the aim of this study was to conduct a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of scientific studies on public goods provided by organic farming in the following areas: water protection, soil fertility, biodiversity, climate mitigation, climate adaptation, resource efficiency, and animal welfare. As part of a literature review, a total of 528 studies with 2,816 pairs (organic vs. conventional farming) were selected for the analysis. These studies had to meet the following criteria: (a) publication period: January 1990 to March 2018; (b) region: temperate climates; (c) study design: at least one organic/conventional pair, and (d) language: studies in German or English. The results of the comparisons between organic and conventional farming were evaluated using descriptive statistics (min, max, mean and median values) and graphically illustrated using box plot diagrams. In addition, the results of the organic variant of the individual pairs were classified on the basis of quantitative criteria with regard to their relative characteristics compared to the conventional variant (Öko +, Öko =, Öko ‐). The evaluation of the scientific literature found that, across all indicators for the fields of environmental protection and resource conservation, organic management showed advantages over conventional management in 58 % of the pairs analysed. No differences were found for 28 %, and in 14 % of the comparison pairs, the conventional management was more advantageous. No clear picture was drawn regarding animal welfare. No substantial differences were found between organic and conventional livestock across all animal species and production forms in 46 % of the comparison pairs. Organic management showed advantages in 35 % of the pairs, whereas conventional management performed better in 19 % of the pairs. However, very few studies have been found considering animal welfare in a comprehensive sense...

Suggested Citation

  • Sanders, Jürn & Heß, Jürgen, 2019. "Leistungen des ökologischen Landbaus für Umwelt und Gesellschaft. 2. überarbeitete und ergänzte Auflage," Thünen Report 298449, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI), Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:jhimwo:298449
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.298449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/298449/files/dn061821.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.298449?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Cecilia Katzeff & Rebecka Milestad & Jorge Luis Zapico & Ulrica Bohné, 2020. "Encouraging Organic Food Consumption through Visualization of Personal Shopping Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-15, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Farm Management;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:jhimwo:298449. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/imagvde.html .

    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.