Learning through stakeholder involvement in the implementation of MOTIFS: an integrated assessment model for sustainable farming in Flanders

Mey, Karen De; D’Haene, Karoline; Marchand, Fleur; Meul, Marijke; Lauwers, Ludwig

doi:10.1080/14735903.2011.582355

Cited by 38 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A detailed description of the development, validation, and application of MOTIFS is provided by Meul et al (2008Meul et al ( , 2009De Mey et al (2011), andMeul (2012). Ecological performance of the farms was evaluated by their energy and nutrient use, economic performance by their productivity and profitability, and social performance was measured through labor efficiency and animal welfare.…”

Section: Sustainability Themes and Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Higher sustainability performance of intensive grazing versus zero-grazing dairy systems

Meul

Passel

Fremaut

et al. 2012

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although grazing of dairy cows is an integral part of dairy farming in many European countries, farmers today more often choose for zero-grazing systems, where cows are housed throughout the year. Some studies already compared grazing and zero-grazing systems for specific issues such as labor efficiency, environmental impact, or animal welfare. In our study, we perform a more integrated evaluation, considering relevant ecological, economic, and social aspects. This allows for a balanced and more complete comparison of the sustainability performance of the two production methods. We evaluated ten intensive grazing and ten zero-grazing specialized Flemish dairy farms on the use of nutrients and energy, productivity and profitability, labor input, and animal welfare. In addition, we put special effort in formulating useful management advice for farmers. Therefore, we combined a detailed analysis of the sustainability indicators with an intensive interaction and discussion with farmers and farm advisors. Results show that, on average, the zero-grazing farms performed significantly worse from an ecological and economic point of view. This fact is explained mainly due to a less efficient use of concentrates and byproducts. Social sustainability performance did not differ significantly between the two groups. As a result, the integrated sustainability performance was significantly lower for the zero-grazing group. This finding shows that a further shift from intensive grazing to zero-grazing can move dairy farming in Flanders further away from sustainability. An important advice to improve the ecological and economic performance of zero-grazing farms is to optimize cows' rations to include more forages and optimize forage production and use. More detailed site-and case-specific management advice for farmers of both groups was provided during a discussion meeting. We consider this an essential additional step to any sustainability evaluation, since progress can only be made when monitoring results are translated into practical measures.

show abstract

Section: Sustainability Themes and Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Higher sustainability performance of intensive grazing versus zero-grazing dairy systems

Meul

Passel

Fremaut

et al. 2012

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Decision makers and stakeholders were asked 10 times to use the model itself or the models' results for adapting their decisions (function 6). There were huge differences regarding the progress and success of this function, comprising planned or intended use de Mey et al 2011), largely failed cases (Squires and Renn 2011), and general success stories (Gaube et al 2009). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This relatively high percentage in this sample also hints at the usefulness of applying a clear strategy and a conceptual framework, based on a lot of team expertise (http://cormas.cirad.fr/ComMod/en/). Moreover, there are examples of projects that do not stand for a specific tradition (Smajgl 2010;de Mey et al 2011). Interestingly, among those articles explicitly citing functional-dynamic process issues, none follows the ComMod approach but each comes from a different modeling community (Smajgl 2010;deReynier, Levin, and Shoji 2010;de Mey et al 2011;Franzén et al 2011;Molina et al 2011;Salerno et al 2010;Squires and Renn 2011;Vayssieres et al 2011) or addresses ''mediated modeling'' (Vayssieres et al 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A functional-dynamic reflection on participatory processes in modeling projects

Seidl

2015

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The participation of nonscientists in modeling projects/studies is increasingly employed to fulfill different functions. However, it is not well investigated if and how explicitly these functions and the dynamics of a participatory process are reflected by modeling projects in particular. In this review study, I explore participatory modeling projects from a functional-dynamic process perspective. The main differences among projects relate to the functions of participation-most often, more than one per project can be identified, along with the degree of explicit reflection (i.e., awareness and anticipation) on the dynamic process perspective. Moreover, two main approaches are revealed: participatory modeling covering diverse approaches and companion modeling. It becomes apparent that the degree of reflection on the participatory process itself is not always explicit and perfectly visible in the descriptions of the modeling projects. Thus, the use of common protocols or templates is discussed to facilitate project planning, as well as the publication of project results. A generic template may help, not in providing details of a project or model development, but in explicitly reflecting on the participatory process. It can serve to systematize the particular project's approach to stakeholder collaboration, and thus quality management.

show abstract

“…Stakeholder collaboration can support the development and dissemination of more robust conceptions of sustainability (De Mey et al 2011;Bell and Morse 2008). Furthermore, selecting indicators can be seen as a process of joint learning and knowledge development to help those involved to make decisions that enhance sustainable development of agriculture (Pretty 2008).…”

Section: Collaborative Processes and Participation As An Answer To Comentioning

confidence: 99%

When experts disagree: the need to rethink indicator selection for assessing sustainability of agriculture

Olde

Møller

Marchand

et al. 2016

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Learning through stakeholder involvement in the implementation of MOTIFS: an integrated assessment model for sustainable farming in Flanders

Cited by 38 publications

References 17 publications

Higher sustainability performance of intensive grazing versus zero-grazing dairy systems

Higher sustainability performance of intensive grazing versus zero-grazing dairy systems

A functional-dynamic reflection on participatory processes in modeling projects

When experts disagree: the need to rethink indicator selection for assessing sustainability of agriculture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About