IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i10p3955-d1390972.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Methodological Framework for Assessing the Agroecological Performance of Farms in Portugal: Integrating TAPE and ACT Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Inês Costa-Pereira

    (IPV-ESA-Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, Agrarian School, Quinta da Alagoa Estrada de Nelas, 3500-606 Viseu, Portugal
    CERNAS-IPV-Centre for Natural Resources, Environment and Society, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, Polytechnic Campus, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal)

  • Ana A. R. M. Aguiar

    (GreenUPorto—Sustainable Agrifood Production Research Centre/Inov4Agro, DGAOT, Faculty of Sciences, Campus de Vairão, University of Porto, Rua da Agrária 747, 4485-646 Vairão, Portugal)

  • Fernanda Delgado

    (IPCB-ESA-Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, Agrarian School, Quinta da Senhora de Mércules, Apartado 119, 6001-909 Castelo Branco, Portugal
    CERNAS-IPCB-Research Centre for Natural Resources, Environment and Society, Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, 6001-909 Castelo Branco, Portugal)

  • Cristina A. Costa

    (IPV-ESA-Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, Agrarian School, Quinta da Alagoa Estrada de Nelas, 3500-606 Viseu, Portugal
    CERNAS-IPV-Centre for Natural Resources, Environment and Society, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, Polytechnic Campus, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal)

Abstract

Agroecology integrates science, social movements, and agricultural practices, playing a central role in the sustainability of food systems. It addresses agroecosystems and food systems holistically; however, defining whether a farm is agroecological remains a challenge. This article proposes a methodology to measure farms’ agroecological performance, adapted to the family farming context in Portugal. The aim of the developed methodology is to compare the agroecological performance of family farms (conventional and non-conventional), providing information about anchors for agroecological transition and supporting public policies. A literature review identified existing farm evaluation methodologies, with Tool for Agroecological Performance Evaluation (TAPE) and Agroecology Criteria Tool (ACT) scoring highest in an assessment process. Questions from both were integrated into a questionnaire for family farmers. This field work provided critical insights towards the methodologies: (1) territorial adaptability; (2) transition constraints’ origin; and (3) use of non-academic language. The results were incorporated into the developed methodology, which combines the TAPE indicator matrix and Gliessman’s five levels of food system change, the latter of which provides the framework for the ACT. This study made it possible to identify the most relevant aspects for characterizing family farmers/farms and the importance of how the evaluation criteria/indicators are ordered by element/theme, as it alters the values of each farm’s agroecological performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Inês Costa-Pereira & Ana A. R. M. Aguiar & Fernanda Delgado & Cristina A. Costa, 2024. "A Methodological Framework for Assessing the Agroecological Performance of Farms in Portugal: Integrating TAPE and ACT Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-21, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:3955-:d:1390972
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/3955/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/3955/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Tilman & Michael Clark, 2014. "Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7528), pages 518-522, November.
    2. Frédéric Zahm & Philippe Viaux & Lionel Vilain & Philippe Girardin & Christian Mouchet, 2008. "Assessing farm sustainability with the IDEA method - from the concept of agriculture sustainability to case studies on farms," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(4), pages 271-281.
    3. Muyesaier Tudi & Huada Daniel Ruan & Li Wang & Jia Lyu & Ross Sadler & Des Connell & Cordia Chu & Dung Tri Phung, 2021. "Agriculture Development, Pesticide Application and Its Impact on the Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-23, January.
    4. Jianling Fan & Cuiying Liu & Jianan Xie & Lu Han & Chuanhong Zhang & Dengwei Guo & Junzhao Niu & Hao Jin & Brian G. McConkey, 2022. "Life Cycle Assessment on Agricultural Production: A Mini Review on Methodology, Application, and Challenges," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-16, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Irene Blanco-Gutiérrez & Consuelo Varela-Ortega & Rhys Manners, 2020. "Evaluating Animal-Based Foods and Plant-Based Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria and SWOT Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-26, October.
    2. Castro, P. & Pedroso, R. & Lautenbach, S. & Vicens, R., 2020. "Farmland abandonment in Rio de Janeiro: Underlying and contributory causes of an announced development," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2020. "Changes in Dairy Products Value Chain in Georgia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-29, July.
    4. Birgit Kopainsky & Anita Frehner & Adrian Müller, 2020. "Sustainable and healthy diets: Synergies and trade‐offs in Switzerland," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 908-927, November.
    5. Tianheng Jiang & Maomao Wang & Wei Zhang & Cheng Zhu & Feijuan Wang, 2024. "A Comprehensive Analysis of Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution in China: Current Status, Risk Assessment and Management Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, March.
    6. Adam A. Prag & Christian B. Henriksen, 2020. "Transition from Animal-Based to Plant-Based Food Production to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture—The Case of Denmark," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-20, October.
    7. Xavier Simon & Damián Copena & David Pérez-Neira, 2023. "Assessment of the diet-environment-health-cost quadrilemma in public school canteens. an LCA case study in Galicia (Spain)," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(11), pages 12543-12567, November.
    8. F. Castro-Llanos & G. Hyman & J. Rubiano & J. Ramirez-Villegas & H. Achicanoy, 2019. "Climate change favors rice production at higher elevations in Colombia," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 24(8), pages 1401-1430, December.
    9. Peter Horton, 2017. "We need radical change in how we produce and consume food," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(6), pages 1323-1327, December.
    10. Gerald Nelson & Jessica Bogard & Keith Lividini & Joanne Arsenault & Malcolm Riley & Timothy B. Sulser & Daniel Mason-D’Croz & Brendan Power & David Gustafson & Mario Herrero & Keith Wiebe & Karen Coo, 2018. "Income growth and climate change effects on global nutrition security to mid-century," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(12), pages 773-781, December.
    11. Giuseppe Gattuso & Luca Falzone & Chiara Costa & Federica Giambò & Michele Teodoro & Silvia Vivarelli & Massimo Libra & Concettina Fenga, 2022. "Chronic Pesticide Exposure in Farm Workers Is Associated with the Epigenetic Modulation of hsa-miR-199a-5p," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-10, June.
    12. Dániel Fróna & János Szenderák & Mónika Harangi-Rákos, 2019. "The Challenge of Feeding the World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    13. Jindřich Špička & Zdeňka Náglová, 2022. "Consumer segmentation in the meat market - The case study of Czech Republic," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(2), pages 68-77.
    14. Théodore Nikiema & Eugène C. Ezin & Sylvain Kpenavoun Chogou, 2023. "Bibliometric Analysis of the State of Research on Agroecology Adoption and Methods Used for Its Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-18, November.
    15. Melanie Speck & Katrin Bienge & Lynn Wagner & Tobias Engelmann & Sebastian Schuster & Petra Teitscheid & Nina Langen, 2020. "Creating Sustainable Meals Supported by the NAHGAST Online Tool—Approach and Effects on GHG Emissions and Use of Natural Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-13, February.
    16. Springmann, Marco & Mason-D'Croz, Daniel & Robinson, Sherman & Wiebe, Keith & Scarborough, Peter, 2016. "The health co-benefits of a global greenhouse-gas tax on food," Conference papers 332766, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    17. Deb, Prokash & Zhao, Shuoli & Wang, Haoluan & Li, Wenying, 2023. "The Determinants of Plant-Based Meat Alternative Purchases in the U.S.: A Double Hurdle Latent Class Approach," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335681, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Infante-Amate, Juan & Aguilera, Eduardo & de Molina, Manuel González, 2018. "Energy transition in Agri-food systems. Structural change, drivers and policy implications (Spain, 1960–2010)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 570-579.
    19. B. Henderson & A. Golub & D. Pambudi & T. Hertel & C. Godde & M. Herrero & O. Cacho & P. Gerber, 2018. "The power and pain of market-based carbon policies: a global application to greenhouse gases from ruminant livestock production," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 349-369, March.
    20. Patricia Eustachio Colombo & Emma Patterson & Liselotte Schäfer Elinder & Anna Karin Lindroos & Ulf Sonesson & Nicole Darmon & Alexandr Parlesak, 2019. "Optimizing School Food Supply: Integrating Environmental, Health, Economic, and Cultural Dimensions of Diet Sustainability with Linear Programming," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-18, August.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:3955-:d:1390972. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.