Browsing by Subject "Sustainability indicators"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Measurement of sustainability at farm-level : stakeholders perceptions and indicators of the social dimension
(2020) Herrera Sabillon, Beatriz Soledad; Knierim, Andrea
While there is a consensus between researchers, decision makers and consumers that an operationalization of the concept of sustainability is necessary, there exist huge disagreements on how to transform the multidimensional concept of sustainability into usable metrics. Due to the multiple actors involved, diverse objectives and complex interactions, the selection of metrics to be monitored is expected to be science-based, but also relevant to the main concerns of the stakeholders. This dissertation address these gaps investigating stakeholders’ arguments about the suitability of a set of sustainability indicators in an accountancy agricultural information system for policy evaluation. The research is framed in the FP7 EU-Project Farm Level Indicators for New Topics in Policy Evaluation (FLINT). The thesis pursues two objectives: i)to elicit stakeholders’ perceptions about the adoption of sustainability indicators into an established farm accountancy data system and ii)to contribute to assess the usefulness of collecting indicators of social sustainability at farm-level. The first objective is reached by exploring the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) stakeholders’ perceptions on feasibility and usefulness of a set of sustainability indicators. Using discussion groups and semi-structured interviews in nine European countries, we collected arguments about the measurement of sustainability at farm level. Participant stakeholders identified that the request of sustainability information of the farm is already taking place under simultaneous, embedded and sometimes overlapping requirements from regulations, markets or research agents. We found that stakeholders have diverging perceptions toward the value of that information, especially for those indicators not expected to be used for farm-level decision making. For the second objective, two empirical studies were conducted using an integrated data set of FADN and FLINT project in a sample of 1100 FADN farms distributed in nine countries. In the first study we explored the linkage between the use of advisory services by farm managers and the economic, environmental and social performance of farms. We identified three clusters of farms that have a different sustainability performance and that relate differently to advisory services. In the three groups of farms, the number of contacts with advisory services is positively correlated with the adoption of innovations, the number of information sources and the adoption of farm risk management measures. We failed to find linear relationship between advisory services and environmental and social sustainability. The second study investigated the influence of farm-level factors in farmers’ satisfaction with farming and its relationship with the level of satisfaction they have with their overall quality of life. We propose a path model using a Structural Equation Model-Partial Least Squares approach, testing the validity and reliability of a farmers’ work satisfaction construct and determining on how far the farm variables are related with it. Results suggest that while it is valid and reliable to measure work satisfaction as a construct, the farm level data that is currently available explains farmers’ satisfaction with their own standard and values only partially. Therefore a metric that measures those values should be further developed and tested. This doctoral dissertation contributes to the identification and prioritization of standardized indicators of farm-level sustainability. Two main learnings can be implied from the findings. The first one is that ontological differences between the agents that are involved in the functioning and evolvement of an information system can be identified (but not solved) applying inter and transdisciplinary research methods. The second one is that standardized indicators of social sustainability are desirable, feasible and useful to be collected and integrated in the same data sets with economic and environmental indicators. That said, due to the complexity of the relationship between sustainability dimensions, the value of standardization of indicators is limited by how are they going to be used.
Participatory evaluation of sustainability of farming systems in the Philippines
(2010) Vilei, Sonja; Dabbert, Stephan
Forest cover in the Philippines has been greatly reduced in the past and slightly recovered since, estimated at around 24% of land surface currently. Small-scale farmers have to survive on small landholdings (2 ha on average and mostly under 5 ha), face insecure land tenure, and the high population density leaves little scope for gaining new agricultural land. Their farming systems continue to form an important part of their livelihoods, but often their strategies are unsustainable in the long run. While the need for evaluating common farming systems and compare them with new alternatives exists, it is important to involve local stakeholders in the search for suitable sustainability indicators. In this study, the search was based on the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Framework and therefore organised under its five types of capital assets: natural, financial, physical, human and social capital. Farmers from five study sites along the Western side of the island of Leyte were gathered in eight focus group discussions to discuss the issues of success and sustainability of their farming systems and identify and rank possible criteria for an evaluation of sustainability. Nine other stakeholders from the same sites were interviewed individually. In a second research phase, all 49 identified criteria were given to 30 farmers and 18 other stakeholders for ranking. Three groups of farmers from the municipality of Baybay were used for comparison: one group of rice and coconut farmers; a second group with (additional) exotic timber trees (usually Gmelina and Acacia mangium); a third group with (additional) indigenous timber trees (?Rainforestation Farming?). The identified indicators were tested regarding their usefulness for comparing the three groups of farmers. Rainforestation Farming, as promising alternative farming system, was analysed further regarding financial aspects and its adoptability with regard to small-scale farmers. The Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Framework was useful for identifying suitable evaluation criteria. The importance of the five capital assets groups was perceived similarly by farmers and other stakeholders, but ranking results for single criteria (i.e. soil quality, membership in organisation) differed. The same holds true when comparing results for the four study regions, where the individual ranking was carried out: significant differences existed for single, mostly financial, criteria (i.e. record-keeping, investment costs) but not for importance of the five capital asset groups. The ranking results differed quite substantially, though, between focus groups and individual farmers, indicating on the one hand the influence of group leaders. But, on the other hand, farmers had the complete list of criteria for the individual ranking, including several criteria which they had not thought of previously, but which they still regard as important. Fifteen criteria were selected as indicators for comparing the three farmers groups. Rainforestation farmers were the group scoring significantly higher on most indicators (i.e education level adults and children, land available per capita, (perceived) soil quality, number of soil conservation measures used, membership in organisation) than farmers without timber trees. Farmers having planted exotic timber trees scored closer to Rainforestation farmers. But to be able to judge if the specific farming system leads to a more sustainable livelihood, time series data would have been necessary. The data of this study allowed concluding that tree farmers planting (indigenous or exotic) timber trees are endowed with higher resources ? more land, higher income, higher education levels. Most likely they had these resources before starting their farming systems. In addition, these farmers were also more actively engaged in organisations and had more contact to extension agents, therefore enhancing their social (and human) capital. The higher score regarding (perceived) soil quality and (non-) use of pesticides these farmers groups reached are likely to be an outcome of the farming system practiced. Analysing the financial feasibility and adoptability of Rainforestation Farming, it shows that the system has the potential to be profitable, but coming with a high risk: investment costs are very high and it takes up to 13 years to regain them. Consequently, the first adopters either had unused land areas or substantial off-farm income, and the subsequent adoption rate is low. Sustainability has to be understood as a dynamic and not a static concept and the concept of sustainable land management must consequently evolve as well. This study tried to add further findings regarding the use of suitable methods for this cause, but as already mentioned above, time series data would be necessary to assess the progress of farming systems towards ?sustainability?.