4. Indicators for assessing sustainability

An indicator is a variable that reflects or explains other variables that are more difficult to understand or quantify [82]. Indicators are a pragmatic tool used to simplify the description of complex systems. They can be used individually, as part of a set, or aggregated within a set to increase understanding by end-users [83]. Indicators are only as good as the data behind them [13]. The three functions of an indicator are to simplify, quantify, and communicate easily. At the farm level, indicators may be the best approach for assessing sustainability directly and assessing the environmental status of farm resources [59].

Indicators simplify, quantify, and analyze the complex and complicated information [84]. When the indicators are defined, they have to be measured by quantitative and qualitative techniques. The main difficulties related to obtaining the indicators are their selection, interpretation, and use. They can be used to determine a trend to have a notion of what is acceptable or to establish a baseline [7, 85, 86]. The existence of a target is of key importance, regardless of the type of target. Even a vague, qualitative target may be an important policy driver. The benefit of specific, quantitative, time bound targets is then straightforward; the indicators can be linked to these and interpreted clearly on a distance-to-target basis. Targets can be based on international treaties, agreements, or derived from environmental and public health standards developed by international organizations, national governments, or expert opinion (i.e., 2015 United Nations climate change conference), and they represent an ideal state [7]. Stieglitz et al. [87] mentioned that humans need an assessment of how far they are from sustainable targets.

The indicators are adopted by countries and corporations because of their ability to condense the enormous complexity of the dynamic environment to a manageable amount of meaningful information [88].

The selection of sustainability indicators is essentially a political process [89, 90]. This implies reconciling "expert-led" and "community-led" perspectives on sustainable development priorities [91]. OECD [92] included criteria for indicator selection as follows:


There have been consistent efforts at international level to identify appropriate sustainability indicators. The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) has derived a list of 58 indicators for all countries to use. Booysen [93] defined the following general dimension of measurement for the classification and evaluation of indicators:


or farming practices [43, 44, 51, 61, 70–73]. The indicator accounting methods in the literature have usually been proposed for specific farming sectors, such as arable farms (i.e., method AEI by Girardin et al. [64] evaluating the impact of practices on agroecosystem and its environment); crops, livestock, and forestry (i.e., method LCAE by Rossier [74] or SD by Pointereau et al. [75] evaluating the environmental impact); and for specific target groups (i.e., method IFS by Vilain [76] or MOP by Vereijken [77]) such as farmers, farm advisers, policy makers, or researchers

Agroecological studies have recognized the importance of analyzing environmental impacts as an aspect for measuring environmental sustainability in agriculture [38, 64, 69, 78, 80]. Different environmental objective groups (or attributes) were assessed in these studies. Notably, the Agro-Ecological System Attributes (AESA) and the Statistical Simulation Modeling (SSM) approaches covered three environmental objective groups. The Response Inducing Sustainability Evaluation (RISE) and Scenario Based Approach (SBA) incorporated only two environmental objective groups. Some agroecological sustainability indicators have been formulated considering any environmental objective group. For instance, Farmer Sustainability Index (FSI), Sustainable Agricultural Practice (SAP), Sustainability Assessment of the Farming and the Environment (SAFE), Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI), and Multi-scale Methodo-

An indicator is a variable that reflects or explains other variables that are more difficult to understand or quantify [82]. Indicators are a pragmatic tool used to simplify the description of complex systems. They can be used individually, as part of a set, or aggregated within a set to increase understanding by end-users [83]. Indicators are only as good as the data behind them [13]. The three functions of an indicator are to simplify, quantify, and communicate easily. At the farm level, indicators may be the best approach for assessing sustainability directly and

Indicators simplify, quantify, and analyze the complex and complicated information [84]. When the indicators are defined, they have to be measured by quantitative and qualitative techniques. The main difficulties related to obtaining the indicators are their selection, interpretation, and use. They can be used to determine a trend to have a notion of what is acceptable or to establish a baseline [7, 85, 86]. The existence of a target is of key importance, regardless of the type of target. Even a vague, qualitative target may be an important policy driver. The benefit of specific, quantitative, time bound targets is then straightforward; the indicators can be linked to these and interpreted clearly on a distance-to-target basis. Targets can be based on international treaties, agreements, or derived from environmental and public health standards developed by international organizations, national governments, or expert opinion (i.e., 2015 United Nations climate change conference), and they represent an ideal state [7]. Stieglitz et al. [87] mentioned that humans need an assessment of how far they are from

[70, 78, 79].

38 Sustainability Assessment and Reporting

logical Framework (MMF) methods [81].

sustainable targets.

4. Indicators for assessing sustainability

assessing the environmental status of farm resources [59].

• Flexibility for allowing change, purpose, method, and comparative application.

The accuracy and credibility related with the evaluation of sustainability indicators are an essential aspect of their development process. The progress towards a more sustainable agricultural production can only be made when the objectives defined by different stakeholders can be translated into practical measures.

A major aspect of the design of indicators is the use of participatory processes. Expert participation provides a preliminary validation of the indicator set. Compromises between feasibility, practicability, and relevance of measurements should be considered including spatial and temporal scales. The farmers validate the tool by evaluating their own results. Through this validation, reference values will need to be established as farmers adopt new practices [59].

analysis or external validation [93]. There is always a requirement for demonstrating proper

Methodologies for Assessing Sustainability in Farming Systems

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79220

41

Using composite indices does not solve the problem, as there are controversies for defining the weight attached to each indicator. Methodological frameworks are needed for the selection of appropriate indicators and in the integration and transformation of the information to set the basis for the design of more sustainable alternatives. Conway [101] and Garcia [102] suggested that for an interdisciplinary analysis it has to produce insights that significantly transcend those of the individual participating disciplines. Systems theory holds that certain principles stand for all systems regardless of its hierarchical level [101, 103]. Identifying a set of central systemic attributes (or properties) that holds across disciplines or scales is therefore fundamental to keep

the evaluation of sustainability and the derivation of indicators theoretically consistent.

reliability of resources management, adaptability, equity, and self-reliance [62].

gh the time.

indicator

Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI)

Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI)

Ecological Footprint (EF)

The development of evaluation frameworks and indicators that make explicit the environmental, economic, social, and cultural advantages and disadvantages of the different NRMS let to improve not only the system's productivity or profitability but also the stability, resilience,

To provide useful indicators based on benchmarking, trend analysis, and decoupling, Kovanda and Hak [104] developed Material Flow Analysis (MFA), and other attempts to conceptualize sustainable resource management were developed based on the idea of 'carrying capacity' [105] to express the idea of biophysical limit to use of resources. Wackernagel and Rees [106] developed the Ecological Footprint (EF) indicator based on the amount of biologically productive land and water area required to support a population at its current level of consumption. EF is used to estimate environmental sustainability at national and global level. And the Eco-Index Methodology [107] measures the impact of different products, services, and lifestyles. It takes care of entire life cycle data for assessing the EF conversion factors for most of the key components. The ecological footprint (as measured using global average yields) is normalized by the application of equivalence factors. Table 1 presents some of the environmental indices developed throu-

Index Description Reference

Living Planet Index (LPI) It tries to assess the overall state of the Earth's natural ecosystems, which

comparisons of environmental progress

indicators that measure damage

of natural resources and the effects of pollution

Eco-Index Methodology Utilizes "bottom-up approach" methodology [107]

of these methods

categories

Table 1. Some environmental indices used.

Footprint is calculated based on either compound or component or combination

includes human pressures on natural ecosystems arising from the consumption

ESI scores are based upon a set of 20 core indicators each of which combines 2–8 variables for a total of 68 underlying variables. Its permits cross-national

It aims to evaluate a set of environmental issues monitored through 6 policy

This comprises 32 indicators of hazards, 8 indicators of resistance, and 10

[106]

[108]

[109, 110]

[111]

[112]

evidence through the reliable results while using composite index [100].
