Environmentalist (2012) 32:99110

DOI 10.1007/s10669-011-9364-3

REVIEW

An assessment of agricultural sustainability indicators

in 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 heterogeneous, and its dynamic characteristics make it highly
variable over time and space. Based on reviews and synthesis, this study visualizes phenomena and highlights the
trend of indicator selection criteria, development methods,
validation evaluation strategies for improvement. In contextualization of the intensification of agriculture and climate change, we proposed a set of indicators for assessing
agricultural sustainability in Bangladesh based on theoretically proposed and practically applied indicators by
researchers. Also, this article raises several issues of indicator system development and presents a summary after
due consideration. Finally, we underline multi-stakeholders 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 Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), known as
the Brundtland Commission, proposed the most extended

R. Roy (&)
Department of Agricultural Extension and Information System,
Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
e-mail: ranjansau@yahoo.com
N. W. Chan
Department of Geography, School of Humanities,
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
e-mail: nwchan@usm.my

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 international 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 multidimensional 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 sustainability, 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 implementation 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 intensification 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 pollution (Heikens 2006). Also, most farmers are small holders

123

100

Environmentalist (2012) 32:99110

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 intensification of agriculture and climate change?

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 26C.
Huq et al. (1995) estimated that 11% of the countrys
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 devastating, there is massive room for revamping agriculture
planning, monitoring, and sustainability evaluation to curb
the intense degree of these aspects.

4 Indicator selection criteria

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, agricultural 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 countrys 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 intensification 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 significant 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,

123

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. Therefore, 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; however, there are some best practices and principles that can
be taken into account. Some studies have emphasized biophysical 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 summarized in Table 1. Also, based on exhaustive literature
review, four indicator selection criteria, namely, scientific
validity, measurability, data availability, and cost are proposed for elicitation of a standard set of indicators.

Environmentalist (2012) 32:99110

101

Table 1 Criteria for evaluating agricultural and environmental sustainability indicators

Objectivity criteria

Ease-of-use criteria

Indicators should have scientific validity1,

Policy-relevance
Effectiveness2,
Predictivity4,
Causality

8, 13, 28

2, 3, 911, 15, 2226, 30

Data availability

11, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29

10, 12, 29

3, 7, 10, 15, 22, 23, 25, 29, 30

1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 1315, 1721

Cost-effectiveness1,

2, 3, 5

Understandability13,

16

6, 13, 17, 22, 26, 29, 30

Conceptual soundness2,

Comprehensibility
Goal orientation

Easy measurability1,

16, 17

Appropriate level of aggregation2,

1821

Statistical validity

System representation18,

20

3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 23, 25, 26, 30

Technical feasibility2

27

Limited in number2,

7, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30

4, 7, 8, 1416, 28

Adaptation
Important for Ag development29
Relevance for systems sustainability

9, 11

2, 28

Analytical soundness2,

Significance in the study area27

Practical applicability

12, 22, 24, 25

Responsiveness
Threshold values and guidelines4,
30

Integratability

16, 27

Dependent on timespace scales5,

2224, 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)

5 Indicator selection method or development

Generally, two types of frameworks for indicators deriving
can be distinguished; system-based frameworks and content-based disciplinary frameworks. However, the existing
frameworks show limitations when applied to the agricultural 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 development highlighting to measurements of quality of life and
ecological integrity. Similarly, Girardin et al. (1999) proposed 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 users point of view.
Besides these, the contextualization, the active participation 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 (Sustainability 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, indicator validation, reference values, and the stakeholders as
well expert participation.
In the literature, authors appraisal or expert judgments 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, participatory 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 somewhat 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 sustainability assessment. According to this table, all the

123

102

Environmentalist (2012) 32:99110

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 0100

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)
Lopez-Ridaura et al.
(2005)

FESLM

Field,
region

Top-down

Expert judgment

Expert appraisal

Referring to thresholds

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

methods except for Multi-scale Methodological Framework (MMF) and Sustainability Solution Space for Decision 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 stakeholders, 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 integration 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 indicators 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

123

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 delineates the applicability and potentiality, however, focused
on only environmental indications. Cloquell-Ballester et al.
(2006) proposed a detailed method for validating environmental 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 indicator validation is highly recognized. Moreover, a considerable 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 sustainability assessment methods (e.g., IDEA, SAFE etc.)
adopted expert appraisal as the popular validation procedure (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 mentioned, experts are selected on the basis of written scientific
or popular papers and on the basis of experiences in the
concerned aspect of sustainability.

Environmentalist (2012) 32:99110

103

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 elicitation (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 Cauwenbergh 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 indicators threshold or baseline value determination 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 determined by the stakeholders and not by the scientists. In our
opinion, it should result from the interaction among scientists, policy-makers, local stakeholders, and communities. A
substantial number of researchers already adopted alternative sources of reference values to assess agricultural sustainability 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,

benefitcost 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

123

Study area

India

China

Mexico

Bangladesh

China

The
Netherlands

India

China

USA

UK

Switzer land

Benchmark
source

Gowda and
Jayaramaiah
(1998)

123

Nambiar et al.
(2001)

Lopez-Ridaura
et al. (2002)

Rasul and
Thapa
(2004)

Zhen et al.
(2005)

van Calker
et al. (2006)

Hani et al.
(2006)

Zhen et al.
(2006)

Sydorovych
and Wossink
(2008)

Pretty et al.
(2008)

Binder et al.
(2008)

Farm

Farm

Region

Region

Farm/
field

Nation

Region

Farm

Farm

Region

Field

Spatial
level

Return on investment, labor

Pd, hourly wage, market
power, subsidies,
production

Value chain, energy, water,

local economy

Profit, income stability,

reliance on purchased
inputs and subsidies,
sufficiency of cash flow,
govt. regulation

Land holding; crop area,

labor; I freq., quantity of
GW, N, P, K F. used; P,
farm income

Economic stability,
economic efficiency,
local economy

Profitability

Crop Pd, per-capita food

production, net farm
return and benefitcost
ratio

Land Pd, yield stability and

profitability from staple
crops

Sorghum, meat and milk

yield, cost/benefit ratio,
economic return to labor,
investment cost

Yield, Income per labor,

real net output per unit
land

Land Pd, crop yield

security, input Pd

Economical

Indicators

Level of education, social

capital, social
acceptance, human
capital

Social and human capital,

animal welfare

Stress, risks, safety,

nutrition, quality, taste,
impact, animal care,
attractiveness, odors,
noise, info.

Age and education level

of respondent

Working conditions,
social security

Working conditions, food

safety, animal welfare
and health, landscape
quality

Food S and adequacy and

effectiveness of the
extension services

Input S, equity, food

security and risks,
uncertainties in
cultivation

Availability of milk, labor

demand, org. inputs
dependency, stability in
production,

Cultural level, number of

varieties/livestock,
organisms

Input S, info self-reliance,

food sufficiency

Social

GHG emissions, B eutrophication,

electricity cons. processing and
cooling, energy cons.
Transportation

Soil fertility and health, soil loss,

nutrients, pest Mgt, B

Soil and water quality, agro and

natural biodiversity, efficiency of
natural resource use, solid waste
disposal, air quality, GHG
emissions

Soil fertility status including soil

pH, N, P, K, and OM content

W, soil, B, N, and P emission

potential, plant protection, waste
and energy

Eutrophication, GW pollution,
dehydration of soil, global
warming, acidification, ecotoxicity

Depth to GW table, WUE, soilquality status (soil pH, OM, N, P

and K), NO3 in GW and chives
plants

Land-use pattern, cropping pattern,

soil fertility Mgt, pest and disease
Mgt, and soil fertility

OM, soil loss, run-off coefficient,

Nutrient balance, efficiencies of F

and I W uses, soil erosion, saline
content and soil quality

Integrated nutrient Mgt, W, and P

Mgt

Ecological

Table 4 Sustainability indicators applied by researchers, their indicator selection method, validation, and sources of reference values

Life cycle
approach,
perspective
and focus

Expert
appraisal

Stakeholders
and experts
appraisal

Expert
appraisal

Expert
appraisal

Researcher
and farmer
appraisal

Researcher,
farmer
appraisal
Consultations
with experts

Experts
appraisal

RISE
guidelines

Stakeholder
and expert
appraisal

Author, local
expert, and
farmer
appraisal

Author, local
expert, and
farmer
appraisal
Multiattribute
utility
models

Not validated

Multiinstitutional
team
appraisal

Not validated

Expert
appraisal

Validation

Authors
appraisal

MESMIS
framework

Authors
appraisal

Expert
appraisal

Selection
method

Compare with
created
thresholds
value

Author
appraisal

Comparison
with
additional
attribute
ranking

Existing
legislative
thresholds

A scale
between 0
and 100

Stakeholder
and expert
appraisal

Compare to
critical points

Referring to
reference
systems

Referring to
threshold/
baseline
values

Referring to
threshold
values

Use max and

mini values

Reference
values

104
Environmentalist (2012) 32:99110

Farm

Farm

Ireland

Spain

Dillon et al.
(2009)
Gomez-Limon
and
SanchezFernandez
(2010)

Region

Italy

Spain

Vecchione
(2010)

Gomez-Limon
and Riesgo
(2010)
Profitability, changes in
farmers profitability,
adaptation index,
production value, changes
in sales, Ag value
addition, income, F

Labor and land Pd,

fragmentation, value
addition, diversification,
mechanization

Gross Ag value and Ag

margin, crop diversity,
holding size, plot no./
farm, machinery

Viability, autonomy,
transmissibility,
efficiency

Income, contribution of ag
to GDP, insured area

Market return, viability,

direct payments

Total gross margin, profit,

public subsidies, GDP
contribution

Economical

Indicators

Total labor, labor Pd, soil

cover, risk of Ag
abandonment, family
and permanent labor,
membership, olive oil
classification,

E in Ag, old-age index,

education, gender
composition, population

Age, level of education,

pluri-activity, family
size, Ag E

Working conditions,
quality of life, local
economy, social
involvement

Ag E, stability of
workforce, risk of
abandonment of Ag
activity

Demographic viability,
isolation

Total labor, seasonal labor

employment

Social

Olive grove varieties, biological

diversity, P risk, % of land
planted with crops, % of nonarable land, eroded soil, OM, N,
and energy balance, herbicide and
I W use,

Arable surfaces, permanent crops,

poplar wood, woods, other
surfaces, biodiversity

Use of F and P, I W consumption,

farm Mgt, agro-ecological Mgt,
farm machinery, type of farming

Ag-ecological: pollution control

and soil fertility, crop rotation, Ag
and natural B, resources Mgt

Economic dependence, area/plot,

soil cover, N, P and energy
balance, P risk, use of I W,
subsidy areas

W quality, air quality

Agro-diversity, soil cover, W use,

nitrogen and energy balance, P
risk

Ecological

SAFE

Multi-Criteria
Analysis
(MCA)

Author
appraisal

Author
appraisal

SAFE

Farm Survey
data

OECD
guidelines

Selection
method

Expert
appraisal

Academic and
local expert
appraisal

Pilot survey

Comparison,
expert
appraisal

Experts
appraisal

Not validated

Experts
appraisal

Validation

Used
sustainability
scale ranging
from 0 to 1
(least to most
sustainable)

Academic and
local expert
appraisal

Based on rank
and weight

Referring to
sustainability
scale (0100)

Used linear
function,
ranging from
0 to 1

Referring to
national data

Used scale
ranging from
0 to 1

Reference
values

Ag agriculture, G ground, W water, I irrigation, P pesticide, F fertilizer, Pd productivity, Mgt management, OM organic matter content, B biodiversity, WUE water-use efficiency, Env
environment, E employment, S self-sufficiency

Considered those studies have given emphasized three dimensions of sustainability clearly

Farm

Region

Greece

Dantsis et al.
(2010)

Farm

France

Gafsi and
Favreau
(2010)

Farm

Spain

Gomez-Limon
and Riesgo
(2008)

Spatial
level

Study area

Benchmark
source

Table 4 continued

Environmentalist (2012) 32:99110

105

123

106

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 sustainability. 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 challenges regarding the balanced development among environment, resources, population, and economic and social
components. Zhen and Routray (2003) proposed operational indicators based on a predefined selection criteria and
suggested that the selection of indicators should be prioritized 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 sustainability with an endnote to study important sustainability
issues in each dimensions for a particular country or region
and by discussing the relations pertaining between principle 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 indicators applied by researchers. Gowda and Jayaramaiah
(1998) developed an Agricultural Sustainability Index
(ASI). On the basis of operational definition, they determined 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. LopezRidaura 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 systems 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

123

Environmentalist (2012) 32:99110

management, which was an ecological characteristicsbased study. Van Calker et al. (2006) conducted a sustainability 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 analysis to select economic, social, and ecological attributes,
and revealed some significant differences in the perceptions 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 integrated the indicators in a trans-disciplinary workshop and
synthesized that the interaction among the indicators significantly 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 multidimensional set of indicators into a unique composite
indicator successfully. Dillon et al. (2009) selected indicators on the basis of overall suitability and the availability
of data in the National Farm Survey. They made a comparison 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 sustainability 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 worthwhile 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 sustainability. 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.

Environmentalist (2012) 32:99110

107

Fig. 1 Proposed agricultural

sustainability assessment
indicators in Bangladesh

Net farm return

Land productivity
Economic dimension

Crop diversity
Sufficiency of cash flow
Education

Agricultural
sustainability

Social dimension

Input self sufficiency

Social involvement
Integrated water management

Ecological dimension

Integrated nutrient management

Integrated pest management
Soil quality status
Soil fertility management
Bio-diversity

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 intensification of agriculture and climate change. All the indicators are examined, checking, and cross checking by
relevant literature considering spatial and temporal characteristics of the country. Hence, all indicators have a
theoretical basis. Despite a set of indicators is not appropriate at all times, it acts as a benchmark and simultaneously assists researchers as an initiator, indicator, and
accelerator to a large extent.

10.2 Social indicators

Social indicators measure farmers capacity and capability
to tackle certain circumstances. For example, input selfsufficiency is a measure of farmers ability to meet the
input requirement of farming from owned resources rather
than from purchased inputs. Social involvements comprise
farmers 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 management 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.

10.1 Economical indicators

10.3 Ecological 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.

Environmental indicators are regarded as prime assessors

of sustainability. It is recognized the significance of integrated 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.

123

108

Environmentalist (2012) 32:99110

Also, injudicious use of agricultural inputs, pests and diseases 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 selection criteria, development methods, validation, and evaluation 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. Therefore, every episode of assessment needs to be handled
carefully, as we concluded these points as reiteration:

Indicator generation deserved integration between topdown 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 assessments 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 participation 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 development is for our common future.
Acknowledgments This article is based on the review of the first
authors 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

123

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 179
Alauddin M, Quiggin J (2008) Agricultural intensification, irrigation
and the environment in South Asia: issues and policy options.
Ecol Econ 65(1):111124
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):
365388
Bell S, Morse S (2001) Breaking through the glass ceiling: who really
cares about sustainability indicators? Local Environ 6(3):291309
Bell S, Morse S (2008) Sustainability indicators. Measuring the
incommensurable?. London, Earthscan
Berroteran JL, Zinck JA (1996) Indicators of agricultural sustainability 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
1214
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 1214
Bockstaller C, Girardin P (2003) How to validate environmental
indicators. Agric Syst 76(2):639653
Bockstaller C, Girardin P et al (1997) Use of agro-ecological
indicators for the evaluation of farming systems. Eur J Agron
7(1):261270
Bossel H (2001) Assessing viability and sustainability: a systemsbased 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 Programme, Centre for Graduate Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia, Bangi
Chen SK (2000) The establishment of evaluation and indices system
for Chinese sustainable development. World Environ 1:19
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):79105
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):579581
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):256263
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

Environmentalist (2012) 32:99110

agricultural economists conference, Beijing, China, August
1622
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):259275
Dunlap RE, Beus CE et al (1993) What is sustainable agriculture?
An empirical examination of faculty and farmers definitions.
J Sustain Agric 3(1):541
Eckert H, Breitschuh G, Sauerbeck DR (2000) Criteria and standards
for sustainable agriculture. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 163(4):337351
European Commission (2001) A framework for indicators for the
economic and social dimensions of sustainable agriculture and
rural development. Agriculture Directorate-General, The Helsinki European Council
Fixdal J (1997) Consensus conferences as extended peer groups. Sci
Publ Policy 24(6):366376
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):114127
Freebairn DM, King CA (2003) Reflections on collectively working
toward sustainability: indicators for indicators. Aust J Exp Agric
43(3):223238
Gafsi M, Favreau JL (2010) Appropriate method to assess the
sustainability of organic farming Systems. In: 9th European
IFSA symposium, 47 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):521
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 Development Policies. Sevilla, Spain, January 29thFebruary 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):10621075
Gowda MJC, Jayaramaiah KM (1998) Comparative evaluation of
rice production systems for their sustainability. Agric Ecosyst
Environ 69(1):19
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, FAOISEAL Alliance discussion paper
Hani F, Braga F, Stampfli A, Keller T, Fischer M, Porsche H (2003)
RISEa tool for holistic sustainability assessment at the farm
level. Int Food Agribus Manage Rev 6(4):7890
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 symposium of the International Forum on Assessing Sustainability in
Agriculture (INFASA), March 16, Bern, Switzerland

109
Hansen JW (1996) Is agricultural sustainability a useful concept?
Agric Syst 50:117143
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(12):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):
475486
Huq S, Ali SI, Rahman AA (1995) Sea-level rise and Bangladesh: a
preliminary analysis. J Coast Res Special Issue 14:4453
Izac AMN, Swift MJ (1994) On agricultural sustainability and its
measurement in small-scale farming in sub-Saharan agriculture.
Ecol Econ 11(2):105125
Lopez-Ridaura S, Masera O, Astier M (2002) Evaluating the
sustainability of complex socio environmental systems. The
MESMIS framework. Ecol Indic 2(12):135148
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):5169
Meul M, van Passel S, Nevens F et al (2008) MOTIFS: a monitoring
tool for integrated farm sustainability. Agron Sustain Dev 28(2):
321332
Meul M, Nevens F, Reheul D (2009) Validating sustainability
indicators: focus on ecological aspects of Flemish dairy farms.
Ecol Indic 9(2):284295
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 methodological framework for the development of indicators of sustainable
development. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 2(2):104123
Moxey A (1998) Cross-cutting issues in developing agri-environmental indicators. Paper presented At OECD workshop On agrienvironmental indicators plenary session 1, York, pp 2225
Nambiar KKM, Gupta AP, Fu Q, Li S (2001) Biophysical, chemical
and socio-economic indicators for assessing agricultural sustainability in the Chinese coastal zone. Agric Ecosyst Environ 87(2):
209214
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 agriculture. Ecol Econ 33(1):135149
Pinter L, Bizikova L, Kutics K, Vari A (2008) Developing a system of
sustainability indicators for the Lake Balaton region. Tajokologiai Lapok 6(3):271293
Pretty J, Smith G, Goulding KWT et al (2008) Multi-year assessment
of Unilevers progress towards agricultural sustainability: indicators, methodology and pilot farm results. Int J Agric Sustain
6(1):3762
Rasul G, Thapa GB (2004) Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural systems in Bangladesh: an assessment based
on environmental, economic and social perspectives. Agric Syst
79(3):327351
Reed MS, Fraser EDG, Dougill AJ (2006) An adaptive learning
process for developing and applying sustainability indicators
with local communities. Ecol Econ 59(4):406418

123

110
Rigby D, Woodhouse P et al (2001) Constructing a farm level
indicator of sustainable agricultural practice. Ecol Econ 39(3):
463478
Saifia B, Drake L (2008) A co-evolutionary model for promoting
agricultural sustainability. Ecol Econ 65(1):2434
Sands GR, Podmore TH (2000) A generalized environmental
sustainability index for agricultural systems. Agric Ecosyst
Environ 79(1):2941
Sauvenier X, Valckx J et al (2006) Framework for assessing
sustainability levels in Belgian agricultural systemsSAFE.
Part 1: sustainable production and consumption patterns. Final
reportSPSD 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. Integrating 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):325337
Singh RK, Murty HR et al (2009) An overview of sustainability
assessment methodologies. Ecol Indic 9(2):189212
Smith CS, Mc-Donald GT (1998) Assessing the sustainability at the
planning stage. J Environ Manage 52(1):1537
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):1020
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 methodologies. 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):640658
Van Cauwenbergh N, Biala K, Bielders C, Brouckaert V, Franchois
L, Garcia Cidad V, Hermy M, Mathijs E, Muys B, Reijnders J,

123

Environmentalist (2012) 32:99110

Sauvenier X, Valckx J, Vanclooster M, Van der Veken B,
Wauters E, Peeters A (2007) SAFEA hierarchical framework
for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric
Ecosyst Environ 120(24):229242
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):115129
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):12651287
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 makinga
sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environ Impact
Assess Rev 25(6):589608
WSSD (2002) Report of the world summit on sustainable development. 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 1:2746
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):271281
Zhen L, Routray JK (2003) Operational indicators for measuring
agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Environ
Manage 32(1):3446
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):507522
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):409419