Open Access
Table 2
Overview of six French evaluation methods of sustainability in agriculture (adapted from Feschet and Bockstaller, 2014).
| Name of the method | Period of construction | Type of production | Scale | Dimensions of | Decomposition | Number o | Number of indicators | Comments: objectives, type of indicators, aggregation method |
| sustainability | of sustainability | main | ||||||
| considered | in | criteria | ||||||
|
|
||||||||
| IDEA (Zahm et al., 2008) | 2000–2008 | Arable, livestock, winegrowing | Farm | Economic, social and environmental | Scale/ component/ indicator | 10 | 42 | Evaluation of sustainability at farm level to |
| make farmers sensitive to this stake. Use of | ||||||||
| causal indicators for environmental dimension, | ||||||||
| sum of scores within each dimension. The | ||||||||
| global sustainability score is the worst of the | ||||||||
| three dimensions | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| Diagnostic de | 2010 | Dairy production | Farm | Economic, social and environmental | Dimension/ criteria/ indicator | 18 | 34 | Evaluation of sustainability at farm level to |
| durabilité – RAD | make farmers sensitive to this stake. No | |||||||
| (Féret, 2004) | aggregation of indicators. | |||||||
|
|
||||||||
| DAESE – OTPA (Guillaumin et al., 2007) | 2003–2007 | Arable, livestock, winegrowing | Farm | Economic, social environmental | Axis/ compartment/ indicator | 19 | 120 | A large range of (causal) indicators to monitor |
| change in management regarding sustainability | ||||||||
| for a farm network at regional (national) level. | ||||||||
| No aggregation. | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| EVAD (Rey-Valette et al., 2009) | 2005–2008 | Aquaculture | Farm, | Economic, | Dimension/ | 13 | 230 | Decision aid tool for action, design and |
| production | social, institutionala and | principles/ | selection of a wide range of indicators (from | |||||
| sector/ | environmental | criteria/ | different types) | |||||
| landscape | indicator | |||||||
|
|
||||||||
| MASC 2.0 (Craheix et al., 2012) | 2005–2012 | Arable crops | Cropping system | Economic, social and environmental | Dimension/ | 8 | 39 | Evaluate and rank cropping systems by |
| aggregated | identifying strong and weak points regarding | |||||||
| criteria/ | sustainability. Use of predictive effect | |||||||
| basic criteria/ | indicators when possible. | |||||||
| indicator | Aggregation thanks to DEXi software. | |||||||
|
|
||||||||
| DEXiPM (Pelzer et al., 2012) | 2007–2011 | Arable crops | Cropping system | Economic, social and environmental | Dimension/ | 8 | 61 | Rapid ex ante evaluation of innovative |
| caggregated | cropping systems to select the most performant | |||||||
| criteria/ | ones. Causal qualitative indicators aggregated | |||||||
| basic criteria/ | in qualitative predictive effect indicators. | |||||||
| indicator/ | Aggregation with DEXi software | |||||||
| practices | ||||||||
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.