Sustainability indicators are well recognized for their potential to assess and monitor sustainable development of agricultural systems. A large number of indicators are proposed in various sustainability assessment frameworks, which raises concerns regarding the validity of approaches, usefulness and trust in such frameworks. Selecting indicators requires transparent and well-defined procedures to ensure the relevance and validity of sustainability assessments. The objective of this study, therefore, was to determine whether 123Environ Dev Sustain DOI 10.1007/s10668-016-9803-x experts agree on which criteria are most important in the selection of indicators and indicator sets for robust sustainability assessments. Two groups of experts (Temperate Agriculture Research Network and New Zealand Sustainability Dashboard) were asked to rank the relative importance of eleven criteria for selecting individual indicators and of nine criteria for balancing a collective set of indicators. Both ranking surveys reveal a startling lack of consensus amongst experts about how best to measure agricultural sustainability and call for a radical rethink about how complementary approaches to sustainability assessments are used alongside each other to ensure a plurality of views and maximum collaboration and trust amongst stakeholders. To improve the transparency, relevance and robustness of sustainable assessments, the context of the sustainability assessment, including prioritizations of selection criteria for indicator selection, must be accounted for. A collaborative design process will enhance the acceptance of diverse values and prioritizations embedded in sustainability assessments. The process by which indicators and sustainability frameworks are established may be a much more important determinant of their success than the final shape of the assessment tools. Such an emphasis on process would make assessments more transparent, transformative and enduring.

No abstract

No abstract

1 Increasing the biodiversity of agro-ecosystems may benefit rare and native species, improve ecosystem services and increase grower incomes through higher value eco-verified orchard products. Previous research has shown that the taxonomic richness of invertebrates in organic kiwifruit orchards is significantly higher than in integrated pest management (IPM) orchards, suggesting that orchard management practices may affect invertebrate biodiversity. 2 We used multiple regression models to investigate the relationships between the diversity of ground-active invertebrates in three functional groups [natural enemies, herbivores, detritivores (including fungivores)] and 14 management practices used on 10 organic and 10 IPM orchards. 3 The significant relationships between the management variables and invertebrate communities differed for each functional group: (i) the greater diversity of natural enemy and detritivore taxa in organic orchards was significantly correlated with less toxic agrichemical sprays; (ii) greater amounts of vegetative ground cover in the organic orchards was significantly correlated with a greater diversity of detritivore and herbivore taxa; and (iii) differences in magnesium application rates explained some of the variation in the herbivore and detritivore communities. 4 Management practices on IPM kiwifruit orchards could be altered to increase invertebrate biodiversity, which also may improve ecosystem services on these orchards; however, care should be taken to ensure that pest populations do not also benefit from these changes.

Our review concludes that organic standards need to account for a broader set of criteria in order to retain claims to 'sustainability'. Measurements of the ecological, economic and social outcomes from over 96 kiwifruit, sheep/beef and dairy farms in New Zealand between 2004 and 2012 by The Agricultural Research Group on Sustainability (ARGOS) project showed some enhanced ecosystem services from organic agriculture that will assist a "land-sharing" approach for sustainable land management. However, the efficiency of provisioning services is reduced in organic systems and this potentially undermines a "land-sparing" strategy to secure food security and ecosystem services. Other aspects of the farm operation that are not considered in the organic standards sometimes had just as much or even a greater effect on ecosystem services than restriction of chemical inputs and synthetic fertilisers. An organic farming version of the New Zealand Sustainability Dashboard will integrate organic standards and wider agricultural best practice into a broad and multidimensional sustainability assessment framework and package of learning tools. There is huge variation in performance of farms within a given farming system. Therefore improving ecosystem services depends as much on locally tuned learning and adjustments of farm practice on individual farms as on uptake of organic or Integrated Management farming system protocols.