Background, aim, and scope There is a growing recognition on the part of industry, policymakers, and consumers that sustainable industry practices are needed to maintain environmental and social well being. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an internationally standardized analytical framework that has traditionally focused on evaluation of the environmental impacts of processes or products using a cradle-to-grave approach. Yet, sustainability, defined generally, requires that assessments consider not only environmental but also social and economic impacts-the other two pillars of sustainability. Even though the LCA methodology has the potential to include both social and economic indicators, and SETAC guidelines recommend the inclusion of such impact categories in all detailed LCAs, no established set of metrics exists to describe the relationship between socioeconomic indicators (SEIs) and a specific product or process; nor is there a common understanding on how such metrics might be developed. This article presents the methods for and development of a suite of socioeconomic indicators that complement the LCA methodology and provides a comprehensive approach for assessing the cradle-to-grave sustainability of a product or process.Methods A combined top-down and bottom-up approach serves as the basis for development of the set of socioeconomic indicators presented here. Generally recognized societal values, industry specific issues, and financial constraints associated with collection of data necessary for measurement of the indicators are all factors considered in this approach. In our categorization, socioeconomic indicators fall into two types: additive indicators and descriptive indicators. Results Indicators are categorized based on fundamental methodological differences and then used to describe the socioeconomic impacts associated with salmon production. Additive indicators (e.g., production costs and value added) and descriptive indicators (e.g., fair wage and contribution to personal income) are both discussed. Discussion There is a need to further develop and refine methods to assess the results of socioeconomic indicators using a life cycle perspective. It would be most interesting to conduct additional case studies that focus on such methodological development, particularly trade-offs between stakeholder groups and pillars of sustainability. Additional areas of discussion are (1) the need for data to populate socioeconomic indicators and (2) defining system boundaries for socioeconomic indicators. Conclusions This article presents a set of socioeconomic indicators designed to serve as a complement for the LCA framework, thus, increasing the framework's effectiveness as a measure of the overall sustainability of a product or process. Development of socioeconomic indicators as a complement to LCA is still in its early stages, however, and further research is required.

This chapter provides an overview of the main indicators of environmental impact, i.e., biodiversity, landscape, soil, ground and surface water, climate and air, and energy. The discussion of environmental impacts is structured by six main sectors. Significant interrelationships were observed between these sectors. The effects of biological diversity are detailed for the following three aspects: genetic diversity, species diversity (floral and faunal) and habitat diversity. The soil aspect focuses on organic matter content, biological activity, nutrient cycles and soil erosion. Different sources of ground and surface water pollution (viz., leaching of nutrients, fertilizers, pesticides and pathogens) are also discussed in detail. The harmful effects of global climatic change on the environment and on plant production are discussed. Finally, the energy intensity and efficiency as indicators to measure and evaluate energy use are discussed.

The monitoring and assessment of agri-environmental (AE) changes and impacts can help to reconcile different land use interests. This paper presents a common methodological framework for assessing changes and, related to that assessment, the effectiveness of AE schemes. The authors use a quantitative farmlevel Agri-environmental Footprint Index (AFI), which aggregates the measurement of a range of farm and landscape-level indicators. The involvement of stakeholders is critically important in regionally customizing the index and its actual application. Such involvement raises the awareness of stakeholders about the multifunctionality of landscapes. This research builds on the results of the EU-funded AE-Footprint project.