IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

The Use of Reference Values in Indicator-Based Methods for the Environmental Assessment of Agricultural Systems

  • Ivonne Acosta-Alba

    ()

    (INRA, UMR1069, Soil Agro and hydroSystem, F-35000 Rennes, France
    Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1069, Soil Agro and hydroSystem, F-35000 Rennes, France)

  • Hayo M. G. Van der Werf

    ()

    (INRA, UMR1069, Soil Agro and hydroSystem, F-35000 Rennes, France
    Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1069, Soil Agro and hydroSystem, F-35000 Rennes, France)

Registered author(s):

    Many indicator-based methods for the environmental assessment of farming systems have been developed. It is not the absolute values of the indicators that reveal whether the impact of a system is acceptable, but rather the distance between these values and some reference values. We reviewed eight frameworks for the environmental assessment of agricultural systems that define reference values for their indicators. We analyzed the methods used to establish reference values and explored how to improve these methods to increase their usage and relevance. This analysis revealed a striking diversity of terminology, sources, and modes of expression of results. Normative reference values allow the assessment of a single system with a previously defined value; Relative reference values are based on indicator values for similar systems or a reference system. Normative reference values can be Science-based or Policy-based . A science-based normative reference value can be a Target value , which identifies desirable conditions, or an Environmental limit , which is the level beyond which conditions are unacceptable. The quantification of the uncertainty of reference values is a topic which is barely explored and warrants further research. Reference values present a means of introducing site specificity into methods for environmental assessment which seems, at present, largely under-exploited.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/2/424/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/2/424/
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by MDPI, Open Access Journal in its journal Sustainability.

    Volume (Year): 3 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 2 (February)
    Pages: 424-442

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:3:y:2011:i:2:p:424-442:d:11343
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.mdpi.com/

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Lenzen, Manfred & Murray, Shauna A., 2001. "A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 229-255, May.
    2. van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M. & Verbruggen, Harmen, 1999. "Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the 'ecological footprint'," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 61-72, April.
    3. Muradian, Roldan, 2001. "Ecological thresholds: a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 7-24, July.
    4. Moran, Daniel D. & Wackernagel, Mathis & Kitzes, Justin A. & Goldfinger, Steven H. & Boutaud, Aurelien, 2008. "Measuring sustainable development -- Nation by nation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 470-474, January.
    5. Ekins, Paul & Simon, Sandrine, 2001. "Estimating sustainability gaps: methods and preliminary applications for the UK and the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 5-22, April.
    6. Hrabrin Bachev, 2005. "Framework For Assessing Sustainability Of Farms," Microeconomics 0511003, EconWPA.
    7. Walter, Christof & Stützel, Hartmut, 2009. "A new method for assessing the sustainability of land-use systems (II): Evaluating impact indicators," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1288-1300, March.
    8. Nijkamp, Peter & Vreeker, Ron, 2000. "Sustainability assessment of development scenarios: methodology and application to Thailand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 7-27, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:3:y:2011:i:2:p:424-442:d:11343. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (XML Conversion Team)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.