An assessment of agricultural sustainability indicators in Bangladesh: review and synthesis

Page 1

REVIEW

An assessment of agricultural sustainability indicatorsin Bangladesh: review and synthesis

Ranjan Roy • Ngai Weng Chan

Published online: 24 December 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The term ‘indicator’ is often vague and heter-

ogeneous, and its dynamic characteristics make it highly

variable over time and space. Based on reviews and syn-

thesis, this study visualizes phenomena and highlights the

trend of indicator selection criteria, development methods,

validation evaluation strategies for improvement. In con-

textualization of the intensification of agriculture and cli-

mate change, we proposed a set of indicators for assessing

agricultural sustainability in Bangladesh based on theoret-

ically proposed and practically applied indicators by

researchers. Also, this article raises several issues of indi-

cator system development and presents a summary after

due consideration. Finally, we underline multi-stakehold-

ers’ participation in agricultural sustainability assessment.

Keywords Indicator � Agriculture � Sustainability �Criteria � Validation � Evaluation

1 Introduction

‘Sustainable development’ has come to the forefront of

scientific debate and policy agenda. The World Commis-

sion on Environment and Development (WCED), known as

the ‘Brundtland Commission’, proposed the most extended

definition for ‘‘sustainable development’’ and since then

has rightfully gained its place in the vision, mission, and

strategy of organizations and governments. Sustainable

agriculture is widely discussed and is viewed in the inter-

national forum as essential for the transition towards global

sustainable development (WSSD 2002).

Despite wide consensus on its relevance, there is some

consensus about the definition of ‘‘sustainable agriculture’’

as an activity that permanently satisfies a given set of

conditions for an indefinite period of time (Hansen 1996).

These conditions are highly congruent to the multidimen-

sional attributes inherent in the concept of sustainable

development, highlighting ecological stability, economic

viability, and socially fair agricultural systems.

The concept of ‘agricultural sustainability’ is both

ambitious and ambiguous, as diverse factors influence its

attainment and assessment. It has different components,

attributes, and indicators at different scales as well as

encompasses complex interactions among the environment,

economics, and society. Although in the literature on sus-

tainability, conceptions of the term ‘indicator’ are often

remarkably vague and heterogeneous, a wide variety of

indicators at different levels have been developed to assess

agricultural sustainability (Lopez-Ridaura et al. 2005; van

Calker et al. 2006). Sustainability indicators are increasingly

seen as important tools in the assessment and implementa-

tion of sustainable agriculture systems. Since sustainable

agriculture is a time- and space-specific concept, the existing

development and critical analysis of indicators are not the

case-sensitive and demand-led in the context of intensifi-

cation of agriculture and climate change.

Bangladesh is an agro-based and densely populated

country of South Asia and crop production is reported to be

highly vulnerable to flood, drought, soil, and water pollu-

tion (Heikens 2006). Also, most farmers are small holders

R. Roy (&)

Department of Agricultural Extension and Information System,

Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh

e-mail: [email protected]

N. W. Chan

Department of Geography, School of Humanities,

Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

e-mail: [email protected]

123

Environmentalist (2012) 32:99–110

DOI 10.1007/s10669-011-9364-3

Page 2

and suffer a substantial shortage of hard cash during the

crop season, which is a common bottleneck in achieving

their livelihoods and food security. Therefore, the issue of

sustainable agriculture has increasingly attracted the

attention of academics, researchers, and decision-makers.

Indicator generation for sustainability assessment needs to

consider these aspects plausibly, as indicators provide key

information on the environmental, economic, and social

state of this system. Pointedly, this article attempts to

tackle the following research questions:

• What are indicators selection criteria, development

methods, validation, and evaluation strategies for

improvement based on reviews and synthesis?

• What should the agricultural sustainability assessment

indicators be in Bangladesh in the context of intensi-

fication of agriculture and climate change?

2 Methodology

This review article is based on secondary data. According

to the objectives of the study, the authors consulted the

different books, journals, and research reports related to

sustainable agriculture and development. Moreover, few

informal discussions with experts in crop science, agri-

cultural extension, and environmental sciences provide an

intangible benefits towards right direction of grounding

review and synthesis. Further, several Governmental

reports (e.g., ADB 2004) assist us as complementary to the

synthesis of the country’s economical and environmental

conditions as well as to determine the underlying indicators

of agricultural sustainability in Bangladesh.

3 Agricultural sustainability in an era of intensification

of agriculture and climate change

Bangladesh has experienced the highest degree of intensi-

fication of agriculture because of the need to feed the

burgeoning population. Several studies have reported that

the intensification of agriculture achieves remarkable

growth in agricultural production, which is also a signifi-

cant source of environmental harm (ADB 2004; Zahid and

Ahmed 2006; Alauddin and Quiggin 2008). Consensus

from these studies suggest that agricultural intensification

raises concerns of unsustainable agricultural systems

through soil erosion, nutrient depletion, water quality, and

the hydrological cycle. Further, climate change is now

largely accepted as a truly global problem. According to

MoEF (2008), Bangladesh is ranked as one of the most

vulnerable countries to tropical cyclones and the sixth most

vulnerable country to floods. Also, in quantitative terms,

the IPCC estimates that by 2050, changing rainfall patterns,

with increasing temperatures, flooding, droughts, and

salinity, could cause a decline in the rice production in

Bangladesh by 8% and wheat by 32%, compared to 1990 as

the base year (MoEF 2008). Moreover, Bangladesh is

under grave threat of predicted sea level rise by 2100 as a

consequence of temperature rise in the range of 2–6�C.

Huq et al. (1995) estimated that 11% of the country’s

population lives in the area threatened by a 1-m sea level

rise, which could cause damage to more than a million

hectares of agricultural land. Despite that the effects of

intensification of agricultural and climate change is dev-

astating, there is massive room for revamping agriculture

planning, monitoring, and sustainability evaluation to curb

the intense degree of these aspects.

4 Indicator selection criteria

Many scholars have dealt with the design of indicators for

gauging agricultural sustainability. It was observed that

the design of an appropriate set of indicators is a crucial

and complex problem (e.g., Bossel 2001), as indicators

should provide a representative picture of sustainability.

Usually, whenever too few indicators are monitored,

critical aspects may escape attention, and when focusing

on a particular indicator, often the system trade-offs are

not properly taken into account (Von Wiren-Lehr 2001).

Also, consideration of too many indicators creates a lot of

problems such as data collection, validation etc. There-

fore, the difficulty is to come up with a set of ‘‘essential’’

indicators (Bossel 2001). There is no gold standard for

designing indicator systems development process; how-

ever, there are some best practices and principles that can

be taken into account. Some studies have emphasized bio-

physical and socio-economic conditions of the study area

as major criteria for selecting indicators in Bangladesh

(e.g., Rasul and Thapa 2004).

Gomez-Limon and Riesgo (2010) said there are many

established criteria to aid the selection of appropriate

indicators. Indicator criteria helps begin ‘‘grounding’’ the

general attributes of sustainability and serve as a necessary

intermediary link between attributes, critical points, and

indicators (Lopez-Ridaura et al. 2005). According to Reed

et al. (2006), indicators need to meet at least two criteria:

(1) they must accurately and objectively measure progress

towards sustainable development goals, and (2) it must be

possible for local users to apply them. These two broad

categories can be broken into two sub-criteria as summa-

rized in Table 1. Also, based on exhaustive literature

review, four indicator selection criteria, namely, scientific

validity, measurability, data availability, and cost are pro-

posed for elicitation of a standard set of indicators.

100 Environmentalist (2012) 32:99–110

123

Page 3

5 Indicator selection method or development

Generally, two types of frameworks for indicators deriving

can be distinguished; system-based frameworks and con-

tent-based disciplinary frameworks. However, the existing

frameworks show limitations when applied to the agricul-

tural production systems, due to the lack of specific content

for the different attributes and the lack of a holistic

approach (Van Cauwenbergh et al. 2007). Mitchell et al.

(1995) proposed a detailed method for indicator develop-

ment highlighting to measurements of quality of life and

ecological integrity. Similarly, Girardin et al. (1999) pro-

posed a procedure for developing indicators emphasizing

ecological aspects. All steps are not always clearly

addressed in articles presenting a specific indicator.

Recently, Walter (2005) proposed two steps for indicator

construction using the ‘pedigree’ assessment by Costanza

(1993), which is a bit complex from a user’s point of view.

Besides these, the contextualization, the active participa-

tion from local communities, precedents, and conceptual

framework, Pinter et al. (2008) proposed an explicit and

elaborate process of indicator development characterizing

four steps. In addition, recently Sauvenier et al. (2006)

proposed a developed content-based (PC&I) SAFE (Sus-

tainability Assessment of Farming and the Environment)

framework for indicator development and sustainability

assessment. The last three frameworks are considerably

better, taking into account the operational definition, indi-

cator validation, reference values, and the stakeholders’ as

well expert participation.

In the literature, ‘authors appraisal’ or ‘expert judg-

ments’ are commonly used methods to develop indicators

around the world (see Tables 2, 4). Typical examples are

the works of Dantsis et al. (2010). A recent trend, partici-

patory research has progressively evolved in different

branches of science. Likewise, indicator selection through

participation process achieved a broadening consensus by

numerous researchers (Fraser et al. 2006; Reed et al. 2006).

However, lack of transparency is a vital obstacle of the

participatory process. Also, it is not possible to ensure that

indicators chosen by ‘experts’ will be relevant and useful

for local situations. Also, Dunlap et al. (1993) found that

the sustainability perception of diverse social groups

involved with agriculture varies significantly. As every

group of scientist and every project team have their own

selection themes, the identification of indicator is some-

what arbitrary or in some cases pursues and influenced

individual or institutional agendas (Fixdal 1997).

According to Bell and Morse (2001), sustainability

indicators fall into two broad methodological paradigms:

top-down (expert-led) and bottom-up (community-based).

Table 2 summarizes the indicator selection on the basis of

the recently developed seven methods of agricultural sus-

tainability assessment. According to this table, all the

Table 1 Criteria for evaluating agricultural and environmental sustainability indicators

Objectivity criteria Ease-of-use criteria

Indicators should have scientific validity1, 8, 13, 28 Easy measurability1, 3, 7, 10, 15, 22, 23, 25, 29, 30

Policy-relevance2, 3, 9–11, 15, 22–26, 30 Data availability1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13–15, 17–21

Effectiveness2, 11, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29 Cost-effectiveness1, 2, 3, 5

Predictivity4, 10, 12, 29 Understandability1–3, 6, 13, 17, 22, 26, 29, 30

Causality16 Conceptual soundness2, 12, 22, 24, 25

Comprehensibility16, 17 Appropriate level of aggregation2, 9, 11

Goal orientation18–21 Statistical validity2, 28

System representation18, 20 Analytical soundness2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 23, 25, 26, 30

Significance in the study area27 Technical feasibility2

Practical applicability27 Limited in number2, 6

Adaptation7, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30 Responsiveness4, 7, 8, 14–16, 28

Important for Ag development29 Threshold values and guidelines4, 16, 27

Relevance for system’s sustainability30 Integratability4

Dependent on time–space scales5, 22–24, 26, 30

Comparability13

Ease of use for decision-making28

1 Pinter et al. (2008), 2 European Commission (2001), 3 COM (2001: 144), 4 Zhen and Routray (2003), 5 Pannell and Glenn (2000), 6 UNCSD

(2001), 7 Freebairn and King (2003), 8 Girardin et al. (1999), 9 MAFF (2000), 10 Tschirley (1996), 11 Guijt (1996), 12 Smyth and Dumanski

(1993), 13 Singh et al. (2009), 14 Berroteran and Zinck (1996), 15 Nambiar et al. (2001), 16 Meul et al. (2008), 17 Binder et al. (2008), 18 Binder

and Wiek (2001), 19 Scholz and Tietje (2002), 20 Wiek and Binder (2005), 21 Nardo et al. (2005), 22 Bell and Morse (2008), 23 Sauvenier et al.

(2006), 24 van Calker et al. (2006), 25 von Wiren-Lehr (2001), 26 Walter and Stutzel (2009), 27 Zhen et al. (2005), 28 Andrieu et al. (2007),29 Hua-jiao et al. (2007), 30 Gomez-Limon and Riesgo (2010)

Environmentalist (2012) 32:99–110 101

123

Page 4

methods except for Multi-scale Methodological Frame-

work (MMF) and Sustainability Solution Space for Deci-

sion Making (SSP) are constructed with their indicator in

an expert-led and top-down process. MMF is the only fully

bottom-up approach among the seven methods. However,

several studies substantiated indicator selection has often

been shown as accurate as indicators developed by experts

(Dougill et al. 2006). However, our vote for expert-led

indicator development with active participation of stake-

holders, since, they are highest well known about their

local situations and conditions. Likewise, the works of

Fraser et al. (2006) and Reed et al. (2006) stressed inte-

gration between top-down and bottom-up approaches for

the development of a requisite set of indicators.

6 Indicator validation

Despite the extended interest in the development and use of

indicators in sustainability assessment, considerably less

effort has been observed on their validation. Validation

refers to the quantification of the appropriateness of indi-

cators in an assessment process. Numerous scholars defined

the ‘indicator validation’ in different ways. They defined

indicator validation as (1) the achievement of overall

objectives or the production of the intended effects

(Bockstaller and Girardin 2003); (2) scientific soundness

and capability of an indicator to meet the objectives for

which it was created (Zahm et al. 2008); and (3) to assess

the correct performance of new indicators (Meul et al.

2009). Also, lack of proper validation negatively affects the

quality, reliability, utility, credibility, and objectivity of

sustainability assessment. Cloquell-Ballester et al. (2006)

determined the inevitability of indicator validation in two

cases where (1) public participation is insufficient, and (2)

an environmental impact working team is selected and paid

by the promoter.

Recently, Bockstaller and Girardin (2003) presented

three kinds of validation. This validation procedure delin-

eates the applicability and potentiality, however, focused

on only environmental indications. Cloquell-Ballester et al.

(2006) proposed a detailed method for validating envi-

ronmental and social indicators. A most recent validation

procedure, MOTIFS (Monitoring Tool for Integrated Farm

Sustainability), was developed by Meul et al. (2009).

However, this tool application is limited to Flemish (dairy)

farming. Thus, it needs validation beyond Belgium and for

different crops production sector. The necessity of indica-

tor validation is highly recognized. Moreover, a consider-

able number of researchers do not validate indicators in

sustainability assessment (e.g., Nambiar et al. 2001; Rasul

and Thapa 2004). It is observed that most of the individual

researchers as well as recently developed agricultural sus-

tainability assessment methods (e.g., IDEA, SAFE etc.)

adopted ‘expert appraisal’ as the popular validation pro-

cedure (see Tables 2, 4). Moreover, taking into account the

availability of convenient validation methods, practical

applicability and consistency with research, a substantial

number of researchers adopted a participation processes to

validate indicators (Cloquell-Ballester et al. 2006; Meul

et al. 2009). Our experience also embraces ‘expert

appraisal’ as well as ‘participation of stakeholders’ with

precautionary principles specifying that expert selection

must be local-specific, relevant to discipline, and based on

experiences. As van Calker et al. (2006) explicitly men-

tioned, experts are selected on the basis of written scientific

or popular papers and on the basis of experiences in the

concerned aspect of sustainability.

Table 2 Overview of methods: indicator selection method, validation, sources of reference value

Benchmark source Method Spatial

level

Indicator/attribute Source of reference values

Approach Selection method Validation

Zahm et al. (2008) IDEA Farm/field Top-down Expert appraisal Comparison, expert

appraisal

Scoring system, scale 0–100

Rigby et al. (2001) ISAP Farm/field Top-down Researcher appraisal Expert appraisal Scoring system, ranges

between 0 and 1

Hani et al. (2003) RISE Farm,

region

Top-down Experts judgment Expert appraisal Based on a scale between 0

and 100

Smyth and

Dumanski (1993)

FESLM Field,

region

Top-down Expert judgment Expert appraisal Referring to thresholds

Lopez-Ridaura et al.

(2005)

MMF Field to

region

Bottom-up Stakeholder

appraisal, criteria

Stakeholder appraisal Stakeholder evaluation

Sauvenier et al.

(2006)

SAFE Farm to

region

Top-down Literature review,

criteria, expert

opinion

Expert appraisal Absolute and relative

reference values

Wiek and Binder

(2005)

SSP Field to

region

Top-down,

bottom-up

LCA, perspective

and focus

Stakeholder and expert

appraisal

Sustainability ranges

102 Environmentalist (2012) 32:99–110

123

Page 5

7 Indicator set evaluation

An indicator does not say anything about sustainability

without making a comparison to a reference value. An

indicator set can be assessed in different ways, viz. by

comparing the threshold level, assessing weight and target,

and expert appraisal, etc. (see Table 4). In the literature,

indicators are often standardized according to the threshold

level in Bangladesh (e.g., Rasul and Thapa 2004), India

(e.g., Sharma and Shardendu 2011) and China (e.g., Zhen

et al. 2006). Agricultural sustainability depends to a large

extent on agri-environmental context, and thresholds are

particularly important in that context given the propensity

of ecological systems to ‘flip’ from one state to another

(Moxey 1998). Further, Schafer et al. (2002) in Walter

(2005) distinguished different modes of scaling functions

and parameter selection: these are based on negotiation

among stakeholders (van Calker et al. 2006); expert elici-

tation (Van Cauwenbergh et al. 2007) science, e.g., as

acceptable daily intake of toxins (WHO 1999) and so on.

The work of Von Wiren-Lehr (2001) and Van Cauwen-

bergh et al. (2007) provides in detail the absolute and

relative reference systems.

Despite that the reference values describe the desired

level of sustainability for each indicator (Girardin et al.

1999), a developing issue is regarding external reference

values highlighted by several authors, including Izac and

Swift (1994). These authors said the importance of defining

thresholds for indicators in sustainability research is

insufficient. Likewise, Hendriks et al. (2000) illustrated

that an external point of reference cannot be global and

influenced by site-specific conditions and numerous factors

(Dantsis et al. 2010). Further, it is difficult to specify a

threshold value for some social and economical indicators

like the identification of threshold values for knowledge

and technology systems.

In the context of global warming, sustainability issues

need to be handled carefully. Hence, it is worthwhile to

improve the indicator’s threshold or baseline value deter-

mination process so that they can provide a clear picture of

the intended field upholding factual information, which

ultimately helps researchers to assess sustainability sensibly.

In some cases, the definition of a reference value is deter-

mined by the stakeholders and not by the scientists. In our

opinion, it should result from the interaction among scien-

tists, policy-makers, local stakeholders, and communities. A

substantial number of researchers already adopted alterna-

tive sources of reference values to assess agricultural sus-

tainability specifically, ‘author appraisal’ (Sands and

Podmore 2000); ‘expert appraisal’ (van Calker et al. 2006);

‘expert interviews’ (Eckert et al. 2000); ‘recommended

values’ (Bockstaller et al. 1997); ‘community averages’

(Gomez et al. 1996), which is also subjected to more reviews.

8 Agricultural sustainability assessment indicators

proposed by researchers

Although, numerous initiatives have been seen to assess

agricultural sustainability, an inconsiderable drive has been

observed to propose a complete set of indicator. Table 3

summarizes agricultural sustainability indicators proposed

Table 3 Sustainability indicators proposed by researchers

Benchmark

source

Indicator

Economical Social Ecological

Smith and

Mc-Donald

(1998)

Production cost, product prices,

net farm income

Access to resources, skills, knowledge,

and planning capacity of farmers,

awareness

Land capability, nutrient balance,

biological activity, soil erosion, use of

F/P, WUE

Chen (2000) Total Ag products, per-capita food

production, net farm income

Per-capita food supply, land tax,

participation in decision-making

Use of external input, GW quality, soil

erosion, per-capita disaster loss,

cropping index

Zhen and

Routray

(2003)

Crop Pd, net farm income,

benefit–cost ratio of production,

per-capita food grain production

Food self-sufficiency, equality, access to

resources and support services, farmers’

knowledge and awareness

Amounts of F, P, and W used, soil

nutrient content, GW table, WUE,

quality of GW and NO3 in GW and

crops

Saifia and

Drake

(2008)

Farm economy, technological

development, traditional Ag

Value system and ethics, food demand,

food safety and health aspects, food

security and distribution

Ecological system and environmental

degradation, on- and off-farm natural

resources, energy and biomass

Guttenstein

et al.

(2010)

Ratio of income/capita of farm,

social integration and

connectedness, diversity of farm,

volume of goods and services

Nutritional status, extent of aboriginal

participation, gender ratio, enrolment

ratio in education, access and control to

land, W and B

G and surface W consumption, B, % of

land affected by desertification, carbon

dioxide emissions

Pd productivity, G ground, W water, I irrigation, P pesticide, F fertilizer, WUE water use efficiency, Env environment, B biodiversity

Environmentalist (2012) 32:99–110 103

123

Page 6

Ta

ble

4S

ust

ain

abil

ity

ind

icat

ors

app

lied

by

rese

arch

ers,

thei

rin

dic

ato

rse

lect

ion

met

ho

d,

val

idat

ion

,an

dso

urc

eso

fre

fere

nce

val

ues

Ben

chm

ark

sou

rce

Stu

dy

area

Sp

atia

l

lev

el

Ind

icat

ors

Eco

no

mic

alS

oci

alE

colo

gic

alS

elec

tio

n

met

ho

d

Val

idat

ion

Ref

eren

ce

val

ues

Go

wd

aan

d

Jay

aram

aiah

(19

98

)

Ind

iaF

ield

Lan

dP

d,

cro

py

ield

secu

rity

,in

pu

tP

d

Inp

ut

S,

info

self

-rel

ian

ce,

foo

dsu

ffici

ency

Inte

gra

ted

nu

trie

nt

Mg

t,W

,an

dP

Mg

t

Ex

per

t

app

rais

al

Ex

per

t

app

rais

al

Use

max

and

min

iv

alu

es

Nam

bia

ret

al.

(20

01

)

Ch

ina

Reg

ion

Yie

ld,

Inco

me

per

lab

or,

real

net

ou

tpu

tp

eru

nit

lan

d

Cu

ltu

ral

lev

el,

nu

mb

ero

f

var

ieti

es/l

ives

tock

,

org

anis

ms

Nu

trie

nt

bal

ance

,ef

fici

enci

eso

fF

and

IW

use

s,so

iler

osi

on

,sa

lin

e

con

ten

tan

dso

ilq

ual

ity

Au

tho

r’s

app

rais

al

No

tv

alid

ated

Ref

erri

ng

to

thre

sho

ld

val

ues

Lop

ez-R

idau

ra

etal

.(2

00

2)

Mex

ico

Far

mS

org

hu

m,

mea

tan

dm

ilk

yie

ld,

cost

/ben

efit

rati

o,

eco

no

mic

retu

rnto

lab

or,

inv

estm

ent

cost

Av

aila

bil

ity

of

mil

k,

lab

or

dem

and

,o

rg.

inp

uts

dep

end

ency

,st

abil

ity

in

pro

du

ctio

n,

OM

,so

illo

ss,

run

-off

coef

fici

ent,

ME

SM

IS

fram

ewo

rk

Mu

lti-

inst

itu

tio

nal

team

app

rais

al

Ref

erri

ng

to

thre

sho

ld/

bas

elin

e

val

ues

Ras

ul

and

Th

apa

(20

04

)

Ban

gla

des

hF

arm

Lan

dP

d,

yie

ldst

abil

ity

and

pro

fita

bil

ity

fro

mst

aple

cro

ps

Inp

ut

S,

equ

ity

,fo

od

secu

rity

and

risk

s,

un

cert

ain

ties

in

cult

ivat

ion

Lan

d-u

sep

atte

rn,

cro

pp

ing

pat

tern

,

soil

fert

ilit

yM

gt,

pes

tan

dd

isea

se

Mg

t,an

dso

ilfe

rtil

ity

Au

tho

r’s

app

rais

al

No

tv

alid

ated

Ref

erri

ng

to

refe

ren

ce

syst

ems

Zh

enet

al.

(20

05

)

Ch

ina

Reg

ion

Cro

pP

d,

per

-cap

ita

foo

d

pro

du

ctio

n,

net

farm

retu

rnan

db

enefi

t–co

st

rati

o

Fo

od

San

dad

equ

acy

and

effe

ctiv

enes

so

fth

e

exte

nsi

on

serv

ices

Dep

thto

GW

tab

le,

WU

E,

soil

-

qu

alit

yst

atu

s(s

oil

pH

,O

M,

N,

P

and

K),

NO

3in

GW

and

chiv

es

pla

nts

Au

tho

r,lo

cal

exp

ert,

and

farm

er

app

rais

al

Au

tho

r,lo

cal

exp

ert,

and

farm

er

app

rais

al

Co

mp

are

to

crit

ical

po

ints

van

Cal

ker

etal

.(2

00

6)

Th

e Net

her

lan

ds

Nat

ion

Pro

fita

bil

ity

Wo

rkin

gco

nd

itio

ns,

foo

d

safe

ty,

anim

alw

elfa

re

and

hea

lth

,la

nd

scap

e

qu

alit

y

Eu

tro

ph

icat

ion

,G

Wp

oll

uti

on

,

deh

yd

rati

on

of

soil

,g

lob

al

war

min

g,

acid

ifica

tio

n,

eco

-

tox

icit

y

Mu

lti-

attr

ibu

te

uti

lity

mo

del

s

Sta

keh

old

er

and

exp

ert

app

rais

al

Sta

keh

old

er

and

exp

ert

app

rais

al

Han

iet

al.

(20

06

)

Ind

iaF

arm

/

fiel

d

Eco

no

mic

stab

ilit

y,

eco

no

mic

effi

cien

cy,

loca

lec

on

om

y

Wo

rkin

gco

nd

itio

ns,

soci

alse

curi

ty

W,

soil

,B

,N

,an

dP

emis

sio

n

po

ten

tial

,p

lan

tp

rote

ctio

n,

was

te

and

ener

gy

RIS

E

gu

idel

ines

Ex

per

ts

app

rais

al

Asc

ale

bet

wee

n0

and

10

0

Zh

enet

al.

(20

06

)

Ch

ina

Reg

ion

Lan

dh

old

ing

;cr

op

area

,

lab

or;

Ifr

eq.,

qu

anti

tyo

f

GW

,N

,P

,K

F.

use

d;

P,

farm

inco

me

Ag

ean

ded

uca

tio

nle

vel

of

resp

on

den

t

So

ilfe

rtil

ity

stat

us

incl

ud

ing

soil

pH

,N

,P

,K

,an

dO

Mco

nte

nt

Res

earc

her

,

farm

er

app

rais

al

Res

earc

her

and

farm

er

app

rais

al

Ex

isti

ng

leg

isla

tiv

e

thre

sho

lds

Sy

do

rov

ych

and

Wo

ssin

k

(20

08

)

US

AR

egio

nP

rofi

t,in

com

est

abil

ity

,

reli

ance

on

pu

rch

ased

inp

uts

and

sub

sid

ies,

suffi

cien

cyo

fca

shfl

ow

,

go

vt.

reg

ula

tio

n

Str

ess,

risk

s,sa

fety

,

nu

trit

ion

,q

ual

ity

,ta

ste,

imp

act,

anim

alca

re,

attr

acti

ven

ess,

od

ors

,

no

ise,

info

.

So

ilan

dw

ater

qu

alit

y,

agro

and

nat

ura

lb

iod

iver

sity

,ef

fici

ency

of

nat

ura

lre

sou

rce

use

,so

lid

was

te

dis

po

sal,

air

qu

alit

y,

GH

G

emis

sio

ns

Co

nsu

ltat

ion

s

wit

hex

per

ts

Ex

per

t

app

rais

al

Co

mp

aris

on

wit

h

add

itio

nal

attr

ibu

te

ran

kin

g

Pre

tty

etal

.

(20

08

)

UK

Far

mV

alu

ech

ain

,en

erg

y,

wat

er,

loca

lec

on

om

y

So

cial

and

hu

man

cap

ital

,

anim

alw

elfa

re

So

ilfe

rtil

ity

and

hea

lth

,so

illo

ss,

nu

trie

nts

,p

est

Mg

t,B

Ex

per

t

app

rais

al

Ex

per

t

app

rais

al

Au

tho

r

app

rais

al

Bin

der

etal

.

(20

08

)

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Far

mR

etu

rno

nin

ves

tmen

t,la

bo

r

Pd

,h

ou

rly

wag

e,m

ark

et

po

wer

,su

bsi

die

s,

pro

du

ctio

n

Lev

elo

fed

uca

tio

n,

soci

al

cap

ital

,so

cial

acce

pta

nce

,h

um

an

cap

ital

GH

Gem

issi

on

s,B

eutr

op

hic

atio

n,

elec

tric

ity

con

s.p

roce

ssin

gan

d

coo

lin

g,

ener

gy

con

s.

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n

Lif

ecy

cle

app

roac

h,

per

spec

tiv

e

and

focu

s

Sta

keh

old

ers

and

exp

erts

app

rais

al

Co

mp

are

wit

h

crea

ted

thre

sho

lds

val

ue

104 Environmentalist (2012) 32:99–110

123

Page 7

Ta

ble

4co

nti

nu

ed

Ben

chm

ark

sou

rce

Stu

dy

area

Sp

atia

l

lev

el

Ind

icat

ors

Eco

no

mic

alS

oci

alE

colo

gic

alS

elec

tio

n

met

ho

d

Val

idat

ion

Ref

eren

ce

val

ues

Go

mez

-Lim

on

and

Rie

sgo

(20

08

)

Sp

ain

Far

mT

ota

lg

ross

mar

gin

,p

rofi

t,

pu

bli

csu

bsi

die

s,G

DP

con

trib

uti

on

To

tal

lab

or,

seas

on

alla

bo

r

emp

loy

men

t

Ag

ro-d

iver

sity

,so

ilco

ver

,W

use

,

nit

rog

enan

den

erg

yb

alan

ce,

P

risk

OE

CD

gu

idel

ines

Ex

per

ts

app

rais

al

Use

dsc

ale

ran

gin

gfr

om

0to

1

Dil

lon

etal

.

(20

09

)

Irel

and

Far

mM

ark

etre

turn

,v

iab

ilit

y,

dir

ect

pay

men

ts

Dem

og

rap

hic

via

bil

ity

,

iso

lati

on

Wq

ual

ity

,ai

rq

ual

ity

Far

mS

urv

ey

dat

a

No

tv

alid

ated

Ref

erri

ng

to

nat

ion

ald

ata

Go

mez

-Lim

on

and

San

chez

-

Fer

nan

dez

(20

10

)

Sp

ain

Far

mIn

com

e,co

ntr

ibu

tio

no

fag

toG

DP

,in

sure

dar

ea

Ag

E,

stab

ilit

yo

f

wo

rkfo

rce,

risk

of

aban

do

nm

ent

of

Ag

acti

vit

y

Eco

no

mic

dep

end

ence

,ar

ea/p

lot,

soil

cov

er,

N,

Pan

den

erg

y

bal

ance

,P

risk

,u

seo

fI

W,

sub

sid

yar

eas

SA

FE

Ex

per

ts

app

rais

al

Use

dli

nea

r

fun

ctio

n,

ran

gin

gfr

om

0to

1

Gaf

sian

d

Fav

reau

(20

10

)

Fra

nce

Far

mV

iab

ilit

y,

auto

no

my

,

tran

smis

sib

ilit

y,

effi

cien

cy

Wo

rkin

gco

nd

itio

ns,

qu

alit

yo

fli

fe,

loca

l

eco

no

my

,so

cial

inv

olv

emen

t

Ag

-eco

log

ical

:p

oll

uti

on

con

tro

l

and

soil

fert

ilit

y,

cro

pro

tati

on

,A

g

and

nat

ura

lB

,re

sou

rces

Mg

t

Au

tho

r

app

rais

al

Co

mp

aris

on

,

exp

ert

app

rais

al

Ref

erri

ng

to

sust

ain

abil

ity

scal

e(0

–1

00

)

Dan

tsis

etal

.

(20

10

)

Gre

ece

Reg

ion

Gro

ssA

gv

alu

ean

dA

g

mar

gin

,cr

op

div

ersi

ty,

ho

ldin

gsi

ze,

plo

tn

o./

farm

,m

ach

iner

y

Ag

e,le

vel

of

edu

cati

on

,

plu

ri-a

ctiv

ity

,fa

mil

y

size

,A

gE

Use

of

Fan

dP

,I

Wco

nsu

mp

tio

n,

farm

Mg

t,ag

ro-e

colo

gic

alM

gt,

farm

mac

hin

ery

,ty

pe

of

farm

ing

Au

tho

r

app

rais

al

Pil

ot

surv

eyB

ased

on

ran

k

and

wei

gh

t

Vec

chio

ne

(20

10

)

Ital

yR

egio

nL

abo

ran

dla

nd

Pd

,

frag

men

tati

on

,v

alu

e

add

itio

n,

div

ersi

fica

tio

n,

mec

han

izat

ion

Ein

Ag

,o

ld-a

ge

ind

ex,

edu

cati

on

,g

end

er

com

po

siti

on

,p

op

ula

tio

n

Ara

ble

surf

aces

,p

erm

anen

tcr

op

s,

po

pla

rw

oo

d,

wo

od

s,o

ther

surf

aces

,b

iod

iver

sity

Mu

lti-

Cri

teri

a

An

aly

sis

(MC

A)

Aca

dem

ican

d

loca

lex

per

t

app

rais

al

Aca

dem

ican

d

loca

lex

per

t

app

rais

al

Go

mez

-Lim

on

and

Rie

sgo

(20

10

)

Sp

ain

Far

mP

rofi

tab

ilit

y,

chan

ges

in

farm

er’s

pro

fita

bil

ity

,

adap

tati

on

ind

ex,

pro

du

ctio

nv

alu

e,ch

ang

es

insa

les,

Ag

val

ue

add

itio

n,

inco

me,

F

To

tal

lab

or,

lab

or

Pd

,so

il

cov

er,

risk

of

Ag

aban

do

nm

ent,

fam

ily

and

per

man

ent

lab

or,

mem

ber

ship

,o

liv

eo

il

clas

sifi

cati

on

,

Oli

ve

gro

ve

var

ieti

es,

bio

log

ical

div

ersi

ty,

Pri

sk,

%o

fla

nd

pla

nte

dw

ith

cro

ps,

%o

fn

on

-

arab

lela

nd

,er

od

edso

il,

OM

,N

,

and

ener

gy

bal

ance

,h

erb

icid

ean

d

IW

use

,

SA

FE

Ex

per

t

app

rais

al

Use

d

sust

ain

abil

ity

scal

era

ng

ing

fro

m0

to1

(lea

stto

mo

st

sust

ain

able

)

Co

nsi

der

edth

ose

stu

die

sh

ave

giv

enem

ph

asiz

edth

ree

dim

ensi

on

so

fsu

stai

nab

ilit

ycl

earl

y

Ag

agri

cult

ure

,G

gro

un

d,

Ww

ater

,I

irri

gat

ion

,P

pes

tici

de,

Ffe

rtil

izer

,P

dp

rod

uct

ivit

y,

Mg

tm

anag

emen

t,O

Mo

rgan

icm

atte

rco

nte

nt,

Bb

iod

iver

sity

,W

UE

wat

er-u

seef

fici

ency

,E

nv

env

iro

nm

ent,

Eem

plo

ym

ent,

Sse

lf-s

uffi

cien

cy

Environmentalist (2012) 32:99–110 105

123

Page 8

by researchers. Smith and Mc-Donald (1998) argued that

profitability indicators such as total production and net farm

income are the primary indicators of agricultural sustain-

ability. From an environmental point of view, they focused

on trends in land and water use. Based on the Chinese

context, Chen (2000) proposed a set of indicators for

assessing agricultural sustainability and found the chal-

lenges regarding the balanced development among envi-

ronment, resources, population, and economic and social

components. Zhen and Routray (2003) proposed opera-

tional indicators based on a predefined selection criteria and

suggested that the selection of indicators should be priori-

tized according to spatial and temporal characteristics under

consideration.

Saifia and Drake (2008) presented a co-evolutionary

model for promoting agricultural sustainability. They

summarized a few significant dimensions (have to translate

into measurable indicators) for achieving agricultural sus-

tainability with an endnote to study important sustainability

issues in each dimensions for a particular country or region

and by discussing the relations pertaining between princi-

ple and indicator. Guttenstein et al. (2010) undertook a

project to develop a definition of sustainability. They

stressed per capita income and equity, human rights and so

on for economical and social indicator selection. Besides

these, they paid equal importance to greenhouse emissions,

biodiversity, and desertification as core indicators under

ecological dimension.

9 Agricultural sustainability assessment indicators

applied by researchers

Table 4 summarizes the agricultural sustainability indica-

tors applied by researchers. Gowda and Jayaramaiah

(1998) developed an Agricultural Sustainability Index

(ASI). On the basis of operational definition, they deter-

mined indicators by the experts’ appraisal and focused

ecological indicators. Likewise, Nambiar et al. (2001)

developed an ASI to measure sustainability. They selected

indicators according to their defined criteria and favoured

environmental aspects in assessing sustainability. Lopez-

Ridaura et al. (2002) developed sustainability evaluation

framework and reported sustainability evaluation is a

multi-stakeholders participatory process. Rasul and Thapa

(2004) evaluated the sustainability of two production sys-

tems in Bangladesh where indicators were determined

based on biophysical and socio-economic conditions of the

study area. Zhen et al. (2005) conducted an agricultural

sustainability assessment study. Availability of threshold

values was one of the vital criteria for indicator generation.

Another study completed by Zhen et al. (2006) in the

same area on ‘sustainability of farmers’ soil fertility

management’, which was an ecological characteristics-

based study. Van Calker et al. (2006) conducted a sus-

tainability assessment and concluded the developed

sustainability function based on stakeholder and expert

perceptions can be used with reasonable confidence to

determine the sustainability of different farming systems.

Hani et al. (2006) assessed sustainability of tea farms

using 12 predetermined indicators and they reiterated the

practical flexibility of RISE as a holistic, comprehensive,

and global tool for sustainability assessment. Sydorovych

and Wossink (2008) applied the method of conjoint anal-

ysis to select economic, social, and ecological attributes,

and revealed some significant differences in the percep-

tions of sustainability by farmers and scientists. Pretty et al.

(2008) reviewed an agricultural sustainability initiative of

‘Unilever’. This paper summarized the changes in selected

indicators for each of five novel management practices

tested on the pilot farm. Binder et al. (2008) presented SSP

as a holistic tool agricultural sustainability assessment and

developed the sustainability thresholds through literature

research and stakeholder interviews. Moreover, they inte-

grated the indicators in a trans-disciplinary workshop and

synthesized that the interaction among the indicators sig-

nificantly influences the results.

Gomez-Limon and Riesgo (2008) conducted a study to

carry out a comparative analysis of alternative methods on

constructing composite indicators. Research results showed

that those methods allow the aggregation of a multi-

dimensional set of indicators into a unique composite

indicator successfully. Dillon et al. (2009) selected indi-

cators on the basis of overall suitability and the availability

of data in the National Farm Survey. They made a com-

parison between 1996 and 2006 data to measure farm

sustainability. Gomez-Limon and Sanchez-Fernandez

(2010) and Gomez-Limon and Riesgo (2010) developed

and applied composite indicators for evaluating the sus-

tainability in two agricultural systems. Based on expert

appraisal, they selected indicators and aggregated them

into sustainability indices. Research results showed the

advantages and disadvantages of the various methods used

in constructing composite indicators, which were worth-

while from the methodological point of view.

Gafsi and Favreau (2010) selected indicators considering

the economic situation and viability of the farming system,

and on the basis of sustainable agriculture principles and

organic farming principles. Vecchione (2010) suggested a

model for indicator generation as well as measuring sus-

tainability. He used a fuzzy-logic approach and hierarchy

process for indicator normalization and weighting for

developing ASI. In addition, Dantsis et al. (2010) selected

indicators based on authors’ appraisals and literature review.

They used rank and weight values to assess sustainability

that was significant in terms of methodological aspects.

106 Environmentalist (2012) 32:99–110

123

Page 9

10 Proposed agricultural sustainability assessment

indicator

We proposed a complete set of indicators for agricultural

(crop science) sustainability assessment at the farm level in

Bangladesh (Fig. 1), conceptualizing the affects of inten-

sification of agriculture and climate change. All the indi-

cators are examined, checking, and cross checking by

relevant literature considering spatial and temporal char-

acteristics of the country. Hence, all indicators have a

theoretical basis. Despite a set of indicators is not appro-

priate at all times, it acts as a ‘benchmark’ and simulta-

neously assists researchers as an ‘initiator’, ‘indicator’, and

‘accelerator’ to a large extent.

10.1 Economical indicators

The impact point of the economic indicators chosen is that

the farm has to be profitable without taking economic risk

to be sustainable. Net farm return indicates farm viability,

which is a core aspect of agricultural sustainability. Input

productivity refers to the output per unit of input used and

is expressed as a benefit-and-cost ratio. Land productivity

is measured by the physical yield of crops. Crop diversity

increases farm productivity and reduces the variability of

agricultural income. Sufficiency of cash flow covers

operational expenses on time. As most of the farmers in

Bangladesh are small holders ([2 ha of farmland), they

suffer shortages of hard cash in the lean period of the

season.

10.2 Social indicators

Social indicators measure farmers’ capacity and capability

to tackle certain circumstances. For example, input self-

sufficiency is a measure of farmers’ ability to meet the

input requirement of farming from owned resources rather

than from purchased inputs. Social involvements comprise

farmer’s participation to local organizations, which lead to

sharing information, knowledge, skills, experiences, etc.

Also, educational level is a key social indicator. Several

empirical studies substantiated education has a strong

association with awareness, knowledge, adoption of man-

agement practice, access and right to information etc. these

are also important aspects for sustainability. Therefore, we

considered education as a key indicator assuming that it has

direct and indirect influences on aforesaid aspects.

10.3 Ecological indicators

Environmental indicators are regarded as prime assessors

of sustainability. It is recognized the significance of inte-

grated water management for future water solution. Hence,

integrated water management is one of the vital indicators

for agricultural sustainability (Chan 2004). Maintaining

soil health is universal for sustainable agriculture and this

can be achieved through properly maintaining the broad

aspects of agriculture such as fertilizer, nutrients, disease,

and pest management. Therefore, taking into account the

prevailing situation of Bangladesh, soil-quality status is a

unique indicator for sustainability and for that soil fertility

as well as nutrient management also need to be considered.

Agricultural sustainability

Economic dimension

Social dimension

Ecological dimension

Net farm return

Land productivity

Crop diversity

Sufficiency of cash flow

Education

Input self sufficiency

Social involvement

Integrated water management

Integrated nutrient management

Bio-diversity

Integrated pest management

Soil quality status

Soil fertility management

Fig. 1 Proposed agricultural

sustainability assessment

indicators in Bangladesh

Environmentalist (2012) 32:99–110 107

123

Page 10

Also, injudicious use of agricultural inputs, pests and dis-

eases are grave threats to production (Barrow et al. 2010).

Several studies substantiated that integrated management is

more sustainable than other crop management systems. In

addition, biodiversity is highly beneficial for agriculture.

Hence, this issue demands proper attention for the future

sustainability of agriculture.

11 Conclusions and recommendations

This paper provided an extensive review of indicator selec-

tion criteria, development methods, validation, and evalua-

tion strategies for agricultural sustainability assessment and

focuses on the present trends and authors’ observations.

Findings of the paper include the proposal of a holistic set of

indicators of sustainable agriculture for Bangladesh based on

theoretically proposed and practically applied indicators

conceptualizing intensification of agriculture and climate

change. Multi-dimensional and multi-functional aspects of

agricultural sustainability make it difficult to assess. There-

fore, every episode of assessment needs to be handled

carefully, as we concluded these points as reiteration:

• Indicator generation deserved integration between top-

down and bottom-up approaches fulfilling proposed

criteria to elicit a holistic set of indicators.

• Indicator validation has to be done by experts with

active inputs from relevant stakeholders’ and with

precautionary principles of expert selection with a view

to ensure the assessment’s quality, reliability, utility,

credibility, and objectivity.

• Indicator set normalization by threshold values is

acceptable. However, multi-stakeholders’ participation

is more than enough for the threshold and baseline

values determination process.

The proposed set of indicators for evaluating agriculture

sustainability at the farm level is hoped to perform as a

‘benchmark’, as it has ample theoretical basis. Agricultural

sustainability assessment for sustainable agricultural

development needs a consolidated approach of modern

science blended with expert knowledge and active partic-

ipation of stakeholders. Therefore, this paper suggests the

integration of approaches as well as participatory process

in sustainability assessment, which ultimately helps to

formulate a comprehensive policy strategy for sustainable

agricultural systems, as sustainable agriculture and devel-

opment is for ‘our common future’.

Acknowledgments This article is based on the review of the first

author’s doctoral dissertation, entitled ‘‘The Influence of Natural and

Human Factors in Rice Farming Sustainability in Bangladesh’’,

supervised by the second author. Financial support was received from

TWAS-USM (University Sains Malaysia) Postgraduate Fellowship,

Penang, Malaysia is greatly acknowledged.

References

Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2004) Country environmental

analysis Bangladesh, 3rd draft. pp 1–79

Alauddin M, Quiggin J (2008) Agricultural intensification, irrigation

and the environment in South Asia: issues and policy options.

Ecol Econ 65(1):111–124

Andrieu N, Piraux M, Tonneau JP (2007) Design of sustainability

indicators of the production systems in Brazilian semi-arid area

by the analysis of biomass flows. Int J Sustain Dev 10(1/2):2007

Barrow CJ, Chan NW, Masron TB (2010) Farming and other

stakeholders in a tropical highland: towards less environmentally

damaging and more sustainable practices. J Sustain Agric 34(4):

365–388

Bell S, Morse S (2001) Breaking through the glass ceiling: who really

cares about sustainability indicators? Local Environ 6(3):291–309

Bell S, Morse S (2008) Sustainability indicators. Measuring the

incommensurable?. London, Earthscan

Berroteran JL, Zinck JA (1996) Indicators of agricultural sustainabil-

ity at the national level: a case study of Venezuela. Research

report

Binder C, Wiek A (2001) Sustainability spaces: a new concept to

evaluate development using indicator systems. In: Inaugural

conference for industrial ecology, The Netherlands, November

12–14

Binder CR, Steinberger J, Schmidt H, Schmid A (2008) Sustainability

solution space for the Swiss milk value added chain: combing

LCA data with socio-economic indicators. In: Proceedings of the

6th international conference on LCA in the agri-food sector,

Zurich, November 12–14

Bockstaller C, Girardin P (2003) How to validate environmental

indicators. Agric Syst 76(2):639–653

Bockstaller C, Girardin P et al (1997) Use of agro-ecological

indicators for the evaluation of farming systems. Eur J Agron

7(1):261–270

Bossel H (2001) Assessing viability and sustainability: a systems-

based approach for deriving comprehensive indicator sets.

Conserv Ecol 5(2):12

Chan NW (2004) Managing water resources in the 21st century:

involving all stakeholders towards sustainable water resources

management in Malaysia. Environmental Management Pro-

gramme, Centre for Graduate Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan

Malaysia, Bangi

Chen SK (2000) The establishment of evaluation and indices system

for Chinese sustainable development. World Environ 1:1–9

Cloquell-Ballester VA, Cloquell-Ballester VA et al (2006) Indicators

validation for the improvement of environmental and social

impact quantitative assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev

26(1):79–105

Communication from the Commission (COM) (2001) European

commission, the council and the European parliament, statistical

information needed for indicators to monitor the integration of

environmental concerns into the common agricultural policy

Costanza R (1993) Developing ecological research that is relevant for

achieving sustainability. Ecol Appl 3(4):579–581

Dantsis T, Douma C et al (2010) A methodological approach to assess

and compare the sustainability level of agricultural plant

production systems. Ecol Indic 10(2):256–263

Dillon EJ, Hennessy T, Hynes S (2009) Towards measurement of

farm sustainability-an Irish case study. Contributed paper

prepared for presentation at the international association of

108 Environmentalist (2012) 32:99–110

123

Page 11

agricultural economists conference, Beijing, China, August

16–22

Dougill AJ, Reed MS et al (2006) Learning from doing participatory

rural research: lessons from the Peak District National Park.

J Agric Econ 57(2):259–275

Dunlap RE, Beus CE et al (1993) What is sustainable agriculture?

An empirical examination of faculty and farmers definitions.

J Sustain Agric 3(1):5–41

Eckert H, Breitschuh G, Sauerbeck DR (2000) Criteria and standards

for sustainable agriculture. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 163(4):337–351

European Commission (2001) A framework for indicators for the

economic and social dimensions of sustainable agriculture and

rural development. Agriculture Directorate-General, The Hel-

sinki European Council

Fixdal J (1997) Consensus conferences as ‘extended peer groups’. Sci

Publ Policy 24(6):366–376

Fraser EDG, Dougill AJ et al (2006) Bottom up and top down:

analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator

identification as a pathway to community empowerment and

sustainable environmental management. J Environ Manage

78(2):114–127

Freebairn DM, King CA (2003) Reflections on collectively working

toward sustainability: indicators for indicators. Aust J Exp Agric

43(3):223–238

Gafsi M, Favreau JL (2010) Appropriate method to assess the

sustainability of organic farming Systems. In: 9th European

IFSA symposium, 4–7 July 2010, Vienna, Austria

Girardin P, Bockstaller C, van der Werf HMG (1999) Indicators: tools

to evaluate the environmental impacts of farming systems.

J Sustain Agric 13(4):5–21

Gomez AA, Kelly DE, Syers JK, Coughlan KJ (1996) Measuring

sustainability of agricultural systems at the farm level. In: Doran

JW, Jones AJ (eds) Methods for assessing soil quality. SSSA

Special Publication, Soil Science Society of America, Madison

Gomez-Limon JA, Riesgo L (2008) Alternative approaches on

constructing a composite indicator to measure agricultural

sustainability. Paper prepared for presentation at the 107th

EAAE Seminar ‘‘Modeling of Agricultural and Rural Develop-

ment Policies’’. Sevilla, Spain, January 29th–February 1st

Gomez-Limon JA, Riesgo L (2010) Sustainability assessment of olive

grove in Andalusia: a methodological proposal. Research report

funded by the ministry of science and innovation and for the

European regional development fund through the research

project SUSTENAGRI (AGL2009-12553-C02)

Gomez-Limon JA, Sanchez-Fernandez G (2010) Empirical evaluation

of agricultural sustainability using composite indicators. Ecol

Econ 69(5):1062–1075

Gowda MJC, Jayaramaiah KM (1998) Comparative evaluation of

rice production systems for their sustainability. Agric Ecosyst

Environ 69(1):1–9

Guijt WJ (1996) Policies that work for sustainable agriculture and

regenerating rural economies: some methodological considerations.

Sustainable Agriculture Programme, IIED, London, England

Guttenstein E, Scialabba NEH, Loh J, Courville S (2010) A

conceptual framework for progressing towards sustainability in

the agriculture and food sector, FAO—ISEAL Alliance discus-

sion paper

Hani F, Braga F, Stampfli A, Keller T, Fischer M, Porsche H (2003)

RISE—a tool for holistic sustainability assessment at the farm

level. Int Food Agribus Manage Rev 6(4):78–90

Hani F, Gerber T, Stampfli A, Porsche H, Thalmann C, Studer C (2006)

An evaluation of tea farms in southern India with the sustainability

assessment tool RISE. In: Symposium ID-105, The first sympo-

sium of the International Forum on Assessing Sustainability in

Agriculture (INFASA), March 16, Bern, Switzerland

Hansen JW (1996) Is agricultural sustainability a useful concept?

Agric Syst 50:117–143

Heikens A (2006) Arsenic contamination of irrigation water, soil and

crops in Bangladesh: risk implication for sustainable agriculture

and food safety in Asia. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the

Pacific, Bangkok

Hendriks K, Stobbelaar DJ, van Mansvelt JD (2000) The appearance

of agriculture. Assessment of landscape quality of horticultural

farms in West Friesland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 77(1–2):157–

175

Hua-jiao Q, Wan-bin Z, Hai-bin W, Xu C (2007) Analysis and design

of agricultural sustainability indicators system. Agric Syst 6(4):

475–486

Huq S, Ali SI, Rahman AA (1995) Sea-level rise and Bangladesh: a

preliminary analysis. J Coast Res Special Issue 14:44–53

Izac AMN, Swift MJ (1994) On agricultural sustainability and its

measurement in small-scale farming in sub-Saharan agriculture.

Ecol Econ 11(2):105–125

Lopez-Ridaura S, Masera O, Astier M (2002) Evaluating the

sustainability of complex socio environmental systems. The

MESMIS framework. Ecol Indic 2(1–2):135–148

Lopez-Ridaura S, van Keulen H, van Ittersum M, Leffelaar P (2005)

Multi-scale methodological framework to derive criteria and

indicators for sustainability evaluation of peasant natural

resource management systems. Environ Dev Sustain 7(1):51–69

Meul M, van Passel S, Nevens F et al (2008) MOTIFS: a monitoring

tool for integrated farm sustainability. Agron Sustain Dev 28(2):

321–332

Meul M, Nevens F, Reheul D (2009) Validating sustainability

indicators: focus on ecological aspects of Flemish dairy farms.

Ecol Indic 9(2):284–295

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) (2000) Towards

sustainable agriculture (a pilot set of indicators). MAFF, London

Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) (2008) Bangladesh

climate change strategy and action plan 2008, September 2008

Mitchell G, May A, Mc-Donald A (1995) PICABUE: a methodolog-

ical framework for the development of indicators of sustainable

development. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 2(2):104–123

Moxey A (1998) Cross-cutting issues in developing agri-environ-

mental indicators. Paper presented At OECD workshop On agri-

environmental indicators plenary session 1, York, pp 22–25

Nambiar KKM, Gupta AP, Fu Q, Li S (2001) Biophysical, chemical

and socio-economic indicators for assessing agricultural sustain-

ability in the Chinese coastal zone. Agric Ecosyst Environ 87(2):

209–214

Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A et al (2005) Handbook on

constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide

(STD/DOC(2005)3). OECD Statistics Directorate, Paris

Pannell DJ, Glenn NA (2000) A framework for the economic

evaluation and selection of sustainability indicators in agricul-

ture. Ecol Econ 33(1):135–149

Pinter L, Bizikova L, Kutics K, Vari A (2008) Developing a system of

sustainability indicators for the Lake Balaton region. Tajokolo-

giai Lapok 6(3):271–293

Pretty J, Smith G, Goulding KWT et al (2008) Multi-year assessment

of Unilever’s progress towards agricultural sustainability: indi-

cators, methodology and pilot farm results. Int J Agric Sustain

6(1):37–62

Rasul G, Thapa GB (2004) Sustainability of ecological and conven-

tional agricultural systems in Bangladesh: an assessment based

on environmental, economic and social perspectives. Agric Syst

79(3):327–351

Reed MS, Fraser EDG, Dougill AJ (2006) An adaptive learning

process for developing and applying sustainability indicators

with local communities. Ecol Econ 59(4):406–418

Environmentalist (2012) 32:99–110 109

123

Page 12

Rigby D, Woodhouse P et al (2001) Constructing a farm level

indicator of sustainable agricultural practice. Ecol Econ 39(3):

463–478

Saifia B, Drake L (2008) A co-evolutionary model for promoting

agricultural sustainability. Ecol Econ 65(1):24–34

Sands GR, Podmore TH (2000) A generalized environmental

sustainability index for agricultural systems. Agric Ecosyst

Environ 79(1):29–41

Sauvenier X, Valckx J et al (2006) Framework for assessing

sustainability levels in Belgian agricultural systems—SAFE.

Part 1: sustainable production and consumption patterns. Final

report—SPSD II CP 28. Belgian Science Policy, Brussels

Schafer D, Schoer K, Seibel S, Zieschank R, Barkmann J, Baumann

R, Meyer U, M�€uller F, Lehniger K, Steiner M, Wiggering H

(2002) In: Walter C (ed) Sustainability assessment of land use

systems. PhD dissertation, Institute of Vegetable and Fruit

Science, Natural Sciences, University of Hanover, Germany

Scholz RW, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods. Integrat-

ing quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage, London

Sharma D, Shardendu D (2011) Assessing farm-level agricultural

sustainability over a 60-year period in rural eastern India.

Environmentalist 31(3):325–337

Singh RK, Murty HR et al (2009) An overview of sustainability

assessment methodologies. Ecol Indic 9(2):189–212

Smith CS, Mc-Donald GT (1998) Assessing the sustainability at the

planning stage. J Environ Manage 52(1):15–37

Smyth AJ, Dumanski J (1993) FESLM: an international framework

for evaluating sustainable land management. World soil

resources report 73. FAO of the United Nations, Rome

Sydorovych O, Wossink A (2008) The meaning of agricultural

sustainability: evidence from a conjoint choice survey. Agric

Syst 98(1):10–20

Tschirley J (1996) Use of indicators in sustainable agriculture and

rural development. Sustainable Development: Environment,

FAO Research, Extension and Training Division

UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) (2001)

Indicators of sustainable development: framework and method-

ologies. Background paper No. 3, UN, New York

Van Calker KJ, Romero C et al (2006) Development and application

of a multi-attribute sustainability function for Dutch dairy

farming systems. Ecol Econ 57(4):640–658

Van Cauwenbergh N, Biala K, Bielders C, Brouckaert V, Franchois

L, Garcia Cidad V, Hermy M, Mathijs E, Muys B, Reijnders J,

Sauvenier X, Valckx J, Vanclooster M, Van der Veken B,

Wauters E, Peeters A (2007) SAFE—A hierarchical framework

for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric

Ecosyst Environ 120(2–4):229–242

Vecchione G (2010) EU rural policy: proposal and application of an

agricultural sustainability index, Munich personal RePEc archive

(MPRA) paper no. 27032

Von Wiren-Lehr S (2001) Sustainability in agriculture-an evaluation

of principal goal oriented concepts to close the gap between

theory and practice. Agric Ecosyst Environ 84(2):115–129

Walter C (2005) Sustainability assessment of land use systems. PhD

dissertation. Institute of Vegetable and Fruit Science, Natural

Sciences, University of Hanover, Germany

Walter C, Stutzel H (2009) A new method for assessing the

sustainability of land-use systems (I): identifying the relevant

issues. Ecol Econ 68(5):1265–1287

WHO (1999) Principles for the assessment of risks to human health

from exposure to chemicals. Environmental health criteria No.

210. World Health Organization, Geneva

Wiek A, Binder C (2005) Solution spaces for decision making—a

sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environ Impact

Assess Rev 25(6):589–608

WSSD (2002) Report of the world summit on sustainable develop-

ment. Johannesburg

Zahid A, Ahmed SR (2006) Groundwater resources development in

Bangladesh: contribution to irrigation for food security and

constraints to sustainability. Groundw Gov Asia Ser 1:27–46

Zahm F, Viaux P et al (2008) Assessing farm sustainability with the

IDEA method from the concept of agriculture sustainability to

case studies on farms. Sustain Dev 16(4):271–281

Zhen L, Routray JK (2003) Operational indicators for measuring

agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Environ

Manage 32(1):34–46

Zhen L, Routray JK et al (2005) Three dimensions of sustainability of

farming practices in the North China Plain: a case study from

Ningjin County of Shandong Province, PR China. Agric Ecosyst

Environ 105(3):507–522

Zhen L, Zoebisch MA, Chen G, Feng Z (2006) Sustainability of

farmers’ soil fertility management practices: a case study in the

North China Plain. J Environ Manage 79(4):409–419

110 Environmentalist (2012) 32:99–110

123