Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T10:55:01.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A framework for evaluating the sustainability of agricultural production systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

C. O. Stockle ,
R.I. Papendick ,
K.E. Saxton ,
G.S. Campbell  and
F.K. van Evert
C. O. Stockle
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Biological Systems Engineering Department, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
R.I. Papendick
Affiliation:
USDAARS scientists, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
K.E. Saxton
Affiliation:
USDAARS scientists, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
G.S. Campbell
Affiliation:
Professor and Research Associate, Soil and Crop Sciences Department, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
F.K. van Evert
Affiliation:
Professor and Research Associate, Soil and Crop Sciences Department, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
Get access

Abstract

Sustainable agriculture has gained acceptance as a conceptual approach for shaping farming systems of the future. All definitions of sustainable agriculture include food productivity, food safety, resource protection, quality of life and environmental quality. However, the sustainability of a wide range of farming systems has been judged only subjectively. Currently there are no scientific criteria to evaluate the sustainability of a specific farming system. We propose a framework for evaluating the relative sustainability of a farming system using nine attributes: profitability, productivity, soil quality, water quality, air quality, energy efficiency, fish and wildlife habitat, quality of life, and social acceptance. Each attribute is scored and then weighted in a way that is subjective and dependent on the judgment of the evaluating team, but that must be expressed numerically. The scoring must be based on quantifiable constraints within each attribute. Constraints can be quantified by direct measurement, which is already true for those related to profitability, productivity, water quality and energy efficiency. Constraints that are not readily measurable will need other evaluation techniques, including expert opinion and computer simulation models.

Keywords

sustainable agricultureproductivitysoil erosionsimulation models
Type
Selected Papers from the Conference on Science and Sustainability, Seattle, Washington, October 24–26, 1993
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 9 , Issue 1-2 , June 1994 , pp. 45 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Anderson, M.D., and Lockeretz, W.. 1992. Sustainable agriculture research in the ideal and in the field. J. Soil and Water Conservation 47:100–104.Google Scholar
2.Dunlap, R.E., Beus, C.E., Howell, R.E., and Waud, J.. 1992. What is sustainable agriculture? An empirical examination of faculty and farmer definitions. J. Sustainable Agric. 3:5–39.Google Scholar
3.Flora, C.B. 1992. Building sustainable agriculture: A new application of farming systems research and extension. J. Sustainable Agric. 2:37–49.Google Scholar
4.National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. Board on Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
5.Neher, D. 1992. Ecological sustainability in agricultural systems: Definition and measurement. J. Sustainable Agric. 2:51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Parr, J.F., Stewart, B.A., Hornick, S.B., and Singh, R.P.. 1990. Improving the sustainability of dryland farming systems: A global perspective. In Singh, R.P., Parr, J.F., and Stewart, B.A. (eds). Advances in Soil Science, Vol. 13. Dryland Agriculture: Strategies for Sustainability. Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
7.Schaller, N. 1990. Mainstreaming lowinput agriculture. J. Soil and Water Conservation 45:9–12.Google Scholar
8.Senanayake, R. 1991. Sustainable agriculture: Definitions and parameters for measurement. J. Sustainable Agric. 1:7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Taylor, D.C. 1990. On-farm sustainable agriculture research: Lessons from the past, directions for the future. J. Sustainable Agric. 1:43–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. EMAP Monitor. Newsletter, March. Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
11.van Evert, F.K. 1992. Modeling agricultural systems with Cropsyst. Ph.D. dissertation. Crop and Soil Science Dept., Washington State Univ., Pullman.Google Scholar
12.Youngs, G.A., Goreham, G.A., and Watt, D.L.. 1991. Classifying conventional and sustainable farmers: Does it matter how you measure? J. Sustainable Agric. 2:91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar