A methodology for enhanced flexibility of integrated assessment in agriculture

Ewert, Frank; Ittersum, M.K. van; Bezlepkina, I.; Thérond, Olivier; Andersen, Erling B.; Belhouchette, Hatem; Bockstaller, Christian; Brouwer, F.; Heckelei, Thomas; Janssen, Sander; Knapen, Rob; Kuiper, Marijke; Louhichi, Kamel; Olsson, Johanna Alkan; Turpin, Nadine; Wéry, Jacques; Wien, Jan Erik; Wolf, J.

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.02.005

Cited by 100 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The MOTIFS process elicited a multiplicity of tool functions, such as monitoring, communication, and decision support. These functions all require different specifications concerning implementation settings and end users (Bockstaller et al 2009. Even within one group of end users, needs can be different.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several authors (Niemeijer and de Groot 2008, Bockstaller et al 2009, Gasparatos and Scolobig 2012 mention the lack of guidelines or criteria on how to choose between tools in the sustainability assessment literature. Future studies on how to link existing sustainability assessment tools to end users for a specific purpose are of paramount importance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this context, Marchand et al (2014) proposed a complementary use of tools and the development of flexible tools for varying farming situations. However, the scientific basis for linking tools across disciplines and scales is still weak (Ewert et al 2009). Now, besides these revelations on lessons learned and actions to take, what is unique in this paper?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sustainability assessment is viewed as a significant aid in the transition toward sustainable development (Pope et al 2004). Assessment tools have been developed for various levels of the food production system; i.e., farm, regional, national, or global (Bockstaller et al 2009, Binder et al 2010. Because of the complexity of food production systems, different types of tools have been developed (de Ridder et al 2007, Binder et al 2010, ranging from indicator sets (e.g., Girardin et al 2000, Rigby et al 2001, Zahm et al 2008, Grenz et al 2011) to simulation models (e.g., Cerf et al 2012, Van Meensel et al 2012.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reflection on the development process of a sustainability assessment tool: learning from a Flemish case

Triste¹,

Marchand²,

Debruyne³

et al. 2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Adoption of sustainability assessment tools in agricultural practice is often disappointing. One of the critical success factors for adoption is the tool development process. Because scientific attention to these development processes and insights about them are rather limited, we aimed to foster the scientific debate on this topic. This was done by reflecting on the development process of a Flemish sustainability assessment tool, MOTIFS. MOTIFS was developed with the aim of becoming widely adopted by farmers and farm advisors, but this result was not achieved. Our reflection process showed success factors favoring and barriers hindering tool adoption. These were grouped into three clusters of lessons learned for sound tool development: (1) institutional embeddedness, (2) ownership, and (3) tool functions. This clustering allowed us to formulate actions for researchers on the following aspects: (1) learning from stakeholders and end users, (2) providing coaching for appropriate tool use, and (3) structuring development of different tool types and exploring spin-offs from existing tools. We hope these normative results evoke other researchers to feed a debate on understanding tool development.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reflection on the development process of a sustainability assessment tool: learning from a Flemish case

Triste¹,

Marchand²,

Debruyne³

et al. 2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While FAO [51] estimates that food production will have to increase by 70% between 2009 and 2050, it has to compete with other land uses, including bioenergy crops, mineral extraction and fiber production. There is significant research on the methodology of land use change assessment and modelling [38,52,53], in particular looking at the European Union [54][55][56][57]. While some argue that intensification of agricultural processes in low income countries is the key [58], others emphasize the importance of diet [59], although recognizing that meat consumption is relatively inelastic to price changes [60].…”

Section: Land Use Policy MIXmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy Mixes to Achieve Absolute Decoupling: An Ex Ante Assessment

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:One approach to reducing the environmental costs of economic activity is to design and implement policies that aim at decoupling economic activity from its environmental impacts. Such a decoupling requires an economy-wide approach to policy-making, through broad mixes of policy instruments that create the right framework conditions for decoupling, and which provide coherent and consistent signals to resource-using sectors of the economy. This article summarizes the ex ante qualitative environmental assessment of three policy mixes (over-arching, metals, and land use) developed within the DYNAMIX project, highlighting their potential impacts on raw material extraction, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, freshwater use, and biodiversity (parallel assessments addressed economic and social impacts, and governance issues). Whilst the environmental assessments largely identified positive impacts, some policies had potential for minor negative impacts. The key challenges for undertaking such an assessment are identified (including uncertainty, baseline accuracy, the differing nature and scope of policies, policy flexibility, and the challenges of implementing volume control policies). Finally, some conclusions and lessons for policy-makers are presented, to contribute to the development of future policies and improve the reliability of future environmental assessments of policy mixes.

show abstract