4.6 Review

Comparison of methods to assess the sustainability of agricultural systems. A review

期刊

AGRONOMY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 223-235

出版社

SPRINGER FRANCE
DOI: 10.1051/agro:2008058

关键词

environmental assessment; indicators; nitrogen; pesticide; nitrate

资金

  1. Picardie administrative region (Conseil Regional de Picardie)
  2. French government's ADEME agency (Agence pour l'Environnement et la Maitrise de l'Energie)
  3. ITADA (Institut transfrontalier d'application et de developpement agronomique)
  4. EU

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since the 1990s, numerous agri-environmental indicators and indicator-based methods have been developed to assess the adverse effects of cropping and farming systems such as water pollution by nitrates and pesticides, and gaseous emissions due to nitrogen inputs. This wealth of environmental indicators and assessment methods based on indicators raises issues on the quality of the methods and of the indicators, and on the relevancy of results. Evaluation and comparative studies are therefore needed to answer such issues. Here, we present four recent comparative studies selected for their illustrative value, first, to analyse the methodologies used for comparison of methods, and second, to highlight the main results of the four comparisons. The first study involves 23 indicators to address nitrate leaching. The second study involves 43 indicators to address pesticide risk. The third and fourth studies compare environmental assessment methods based on 4-5 indicators used in French and Upper Rhine plains ( France, Germany and Switzerland). Both studies also compare the outputs of the methods and highlight the low degree of convergence between them. The approach proposed in the last study is the most elaborate among the four case studies. It could be used to develop a generic evaluation and comparison methodology. The review of those four case studies shows the need to formalise the methodology underlying any comparison work of indicators or evaluation methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据