skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture

Abstract

This paper develops a framework for evaluating sustainability assessment methods by separately analyzing their normative, systemic and procedural dimensions as suggested by Wiek and Binder [Wiek, A, Binder, C. Solution spaces for decision-making - a sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2005, 25: 589-608.]. The framework is then used to characterize indicator-based sustainability assessment methods in agriculture. For a long time, sustainability assessment in agriculture has focused mostly on environmental and technical issues, thus neglecting the economic and, above all, the social aspects of sustainability, the multi-functionality of agriculture and the applicability of the results. In response to these shortcomings, several integrative sustainability assessment methods have been developed for the agricultural sector. This paper reviews seven of these that represent the diversity of tools developed in this area. The reviewed assessment methods can be categorized into three types: (i) top-down farm assessment methods; (ii) top-down regional assessment methods with some stakeholder participation; (iii) bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary methods with stakeholder participation throughout the process. The results readily show the trade-offs encountered when selecting an assessment method. A clear, standardized, top-down procedure allows for potentially benchmarking and comparing results across regions and sites. However, this comes atmore » the cost of system specificity. As the top-down methods often have low stakeholder involvement, the application and implementation of the results might be difficult. Our analysis suggests that to include the aspects mentioned above in agricultural sustainability assessment, the bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary methods are the most suitable ones.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [1];  [1];  [2]
  1. Social and Industrial Ecology, Department of Geography, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zurich (Switzerland)
  2. (Austria)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
21364702
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Environmental Impact Assessment Review; Journal Volume: 30; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2009.06.002; PII: S0195-9255(09)00092-4; Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; AGRICULTURE; COST; DECISION MAKING; FARMS; INDICATORS; SPECIFICITY; URBAN AREAS

Citation Formats

Binder, Claudia R., E-mail: claudia.binder@geo.uzh.c, Institute for System Science, Innovation and Sustainability Research, University of Graz, Feola, Giuseppe, Steinberger, Julia K., and Institute of Social Ecology, Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Klagenfurt, Schottenfeldgasse 29, A-1070 Vienna. Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. United States: N. p., 2010. Web. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.06.002.
Binder, Claudia R., E-mail: claudia.binder@geo.uzh.c, Institute for System Science, Innovation and Sustainability Research, University of Graz, Feola, Giuseppe, Steinberger, Julia K., & Institute of Social Ecology, Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Klagenfurt, Schottenfeldgasse 29, A-1070 Vienna. Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. United States. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.06.002.
Binder, Claudia R., E-mail: claudia.binder@geo.uzh.c, Institute for System Science, Innovation and Sustainability Research, University of Graz, Feola, Giuseppe, Steinberger, Julia K., and Institute of Social Ecology, Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Klagenfurt, Schottenfeldgasse 29, A-1070 Vienna. 2010. "Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture". United States. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.06.002.
@article{osti_21364702,
title = {Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture},
author = {Binder, Claudia R., E-mail: claudia.binder@geo.uzh.c and Institute for System Science, Innovation and Sustainability Research, University of Graz and Feola, Giuseppe and Steinberger, Julia K. and Institute of Social Ecology, Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Klagenfurt, Schottenfeldgasse 29, A-1070 Vienna},
abstractNote = {This paper develops a framework for evaluating sustainability assessment methods by separately analyzing their normative, systemic and procedural dimensions as suggested by Wiek and Binder [Wiek, A, Binder, C. Solution spaces for decision-making - a sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2005, 25: 589-608.]. The framework is then used to characterize indicator-based sustainability assessment methods in agriculture. For a long time, sustainability assessment in agriculture has focused mostly on environmental and technical issues, thus neglecting the economic and, above all, the social aspects of sustainability, the multi-functionality of agriculture and the applicability of the results. In response to these shortcomings, several integrative sustainability assessment methods have been developed for the agricultural sector. This paper reviews seven of these that represent the diversity of tools developed in this area. The reviewed assessment methods can be categorized into three types: (i) top-down farm assessment methods; (ii) top-down regional assessment methods with some stakeholder participation; (iii) bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary methods with stakeholder participation throughout the process. The results readily show the trade-offs encountered when selecting an assessment method. A clear, standardized, top-down procedure allows for potentially benchmarking and comparing results across regions and sites. However, this comes at the cost of system specificity. As the top-down methods often have low stakeholder involvement, the application and implementation of the results might be difficult. Our analysis suggests that to include the aspects mentioned above in agricultural sustainability assessment, the bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary methods are the most suitable ones.},
doi = {10.1016/j.eiar.2009.06.002},
journal = {Environmental Impact Assessment Review},
number = 2,
volume = 30,
place = {United States},
year = 2010,
month = 2
}
  • Currently, there is no standard method to assess the complex systems in rangeland ecosystems. Decision makers need baselines to create a common language of current rangeland conditions and standards for continued rangeland assessment. The Sustainable Rangeland Roundtable (SRR), a group of private and public organizations and agencies, has created a forum to discuss rangeland sustainability and assessment. The SRR has worked to integrate social, economic, and ecological disciplines related to rangelands and has identified a standard set of indicators that can be used to assess rangeland sustainability. As part of this process, SRR has developed a two-tiered conceptual framework frommore » a systems perspective to study the validity of indicators and the relationships among them. The first tier categorizes rangeland characteristics into four states. The second tier defines processes affecting these states through time and space. The framework clearly shows that the processes affect and are affected by each other.« less
  • A detailed procedural analysis is given and results of implementation of the new version of the effusion method for determining the Gibbs energy (thermodynamic activity) of binary and ternary systems of alkali metals Cs-Na, K-Na, Cs-K, and Cs-K-Na are presented. The activity is determined using partial pressures of the components measured according the effusion method by the intensity of their atomic beams. The pressure range used in the experiment is intermediate between the Knudsen and hydrodynamic effusion modes. A generalized version of the effusion method involves the pressure range beyond the limits of the applicability of the Hertz-Knudsen equation. Employmentmore » of this method provides the differential equation of chemical thermodynamics; solution of this equation makes it possible to construct the Gibbs energy in the range of temperatures 400 {<=} T {<=} 1200 K and concentrations 0 {<=} x{sub i} {<=} 1.« less
  • Purpose: SRS is an effective non-invasive alternative treatment modality with minimal-toxicity used to treat patients with medically/surgically refractory trigeminal neuralgia root(TNR) or those who may not tolerate surgical intervention. We present our linac-based SRS procedure for TNR treatment and simultaneously report our clinical outcomes. Methods: Twenty-eight TNR-patients treated with frame-based SRS at our institution (2009–2015) with a single-fraction point-dose of 60-80Gy to TNR were included in this IRB-approved study. Experienced neurosurgeon and radiation oncologist delineated the TNR on 1.0mm thin 3D-FIESTA-MRI that was co-registered with 0.7mm thin planning-CT. Treatment plans were generated in iPlan (BrainLAB) with a 4-mm diameter conemore » using 79 arcs with differential-weighting for Novalis-TX 6MV-SRS(1000MU/min) beam and optimized to minimize brainstem dose. Winston-Lutz test was performed before each treatment delivery with sub-millimeter isocenter accuracy. Quality assurance of frame placement was maintained by helmet-bobble-measurement before simulation-CT and before patient setup at treatment couch. OBI-CBCT scan was performed for patient setup verification without applying shifts. On clinical follow up, treatment response was assessed using Barrow Neurological Institute Pain Intensity Score(BNI-score:I–V). Results: 26/28 TNR-patients (16-males/10-females) who were treated with following single-fraction point-dose to isocenter: 80Gy(n=22),75Gy(n=1),70Gy(n=2) and 60Gy(n=1, re-treatment) were followed up. Median follow-up interval was 8.5-months (ranged:1–48.5months). Median age was 70-yr (ranged:43–93-yr). Right/left TNR ratio was 15/11. Delivered total # of average MUs was 19034±1204. Average beam-on-time: 19.0±1.3min. Brainstem max-dose and dose to 0.5cc were 13.3±2.4Gy (ranged:8.1–16.5Gy) and 3.6±0.4Gy (ranged:3.0–4.9Gy). On average, max-dose to optic-apparatus was ≤1.2Gy. Mean value of max-dose to eyes/lens was 0.26Gy/0.11Gy. Overall, 20-patients (77%) responded to treatment: 5(19%) achieved complete pain relief without medication (BNI score: I); 5(19%) had no-pain, decreased medication (BNI-score:II); 2(7.7%) had no-pain, but, continued medication (BNI-score:IIIA), and 8(30.8%) had pain that was well controlled by medication (BNI-score: IIIB). Six-patients (23.0%) did not respond to treatment (BNI-score:IV–V). Neither cranial nerve deficit nor radio-necrosis of temporal lobe was clinically observed. Conclusion: Linac-based SRS for medically/surgically refractory TNR provided an effective treatment option for pain resolution/control with very minimal if any normal tissue toxicity. Longer follow up of these patients is anticipated/needed to confirm our observations.« less
  • The effect of finite nuclear dimensions on the angular distribution of longitudinally polarized electron-positron pairs formed by circularly polarized gamma quanta in a nuclear field was investigated. The derived cross section formula contains spin correlation terms, considering mean square radius of the nuclear charge, in addition to the BetheGaitler cross sections. (R.V.J.)