• search hit 3 of 15
Back to Result List

Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models

  • A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level assessment tools and models converge on these new paradigms of sustainability is important for drawing comparison on sustainability performances of farming systems, conducting meta-analyses and upscaling local responses to global driving forces. In this study, a coverage analysis was performed for several farm-level sustainability assessment (SA) tools (SAFA, RISE, KSNL, DLG) and models (MODAM, MONICA, APSIM), in regard to their potential for incorporating ES and contribution to attaining the SDGs. Lists of agricultural-relevant CICES classes and SDG targets were compiled and matched against the indicators of the tools and models. The results showed that SAFA possessed the most comprehensive coverage of ES and SDGs, followed by RISE and KSNL.A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level assessment tools and models converge on these new paradigms of sustainability is important for drawing comparison on sustainability performances of farming systems, conducting meta-analyses and upscaling local responses to global driving forces. In this study, a coverage analysis was performed for several farm-level sustainability assessment (SA) tools (SAFA, RISE, KSNL, DLG) and models (MODAM, MONICA, APSIM), in regard to their potential for incorporating ES and contribution to attaining the SDGs. Lists of agricultural-relevant CICES classes and SDG targets were compiled and matched against the indicators of the tools and models. The results showed that SAFA possessed the most comprehensive coverage of ES and SDGs, followed by RISE and KSNL. In comparison to models, SA tools were observed to have a higher degree of potential for covering ES and SDGs, which was attributed to larger and broader indicators sets. However, this study also suggested that, overall, current tools and models do not sufficiently articulate the concept of ecosystem services.show moreshow less

Download full text files

Export metadata

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar Statistics
Metadaten
Author:Joseph MacPherson, Carsten Paul, Katharina HelmingORCiDGND
URN:urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-3395
DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166617
ISSN:2071-1050
Parent Title (English):Sustainability
Publisher:MDPI
Document Type:Article
Language:English
Year of Completion:2020
Date of first Publication:2020/08/15
Publishing Institution:Hochschule für nachhaltige Entwicklung Eberswalde
Release Date:2023/05/24
Tag:SA; SDGs CICES; agriculture; coverage analysis; ecosystem services; models; tools
Volume:12
Issue:16
Article Number:6617
Page Number:19
Institutions / Departments:Fachbereich Landschaftsnutzung und Naturschutz
open_access (DINI-Set):open_access
University Bibliography:University Bibliography
Zweitveröffentlichung
Peer-Review / Referiert
Licence (German):License LogoCreative Commons - CC BY - Namensnennung 4.0 International
Einverstanden ✔
Diese Webseite verwendet technisch erforderliche Session-Cookies. Durch die weitere Nutzung der Webseite stimmen Sie diesem zu. Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier.