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

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 multifunctionality 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 bottomup, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary methods are the most suitable ones.

the implication of social cognition for experimental economics From the issue entitled "Special issue on Experimental economics and the social embedding of economic behavior and cognition"

Can human social cognitive processes and social motives be grasped by the methods of experimental economics? Experimental studies of strategic cognition and social preferences contribute to our understanding of the social aspects of economic decisions making. Yet, papers in this issue argue that the social aspects of decision-making introduce several difficulties for interpreting the results of economic experiments. In particular, the laboratory is itself a social context, and in many respects a rather distinctive one, which raises questions of external validity.

Social approach in preschool children with Williams syndrome: the role of the face

Background Indiscriminate social approach behaviour is a salient aspect of the Williams syndrome (WS) behavioural phenotype. The present study examines approach behaviour in preschoolers with WS and evaluates the role of the face in WS social approach behaviour. Method Ten preschoolers with WS (aged 3-6 years) and two groups of typically developing children, matched to the WS group on chronological or mental age, participated in an observed play session. The play session incorporated social and non-social components including two components that assessed approach behaviour towards strangers, one in which the stranger’s face could be seen and one in which the stranger’s face was covered. Results In response to the non-social aspects of the play session, the WS group behaved similarly to both control groups. In contrast, the preschoolers with WS were significantly more willing than either control group to engage with a stranger, even when the stranger’s face could not be seen. Conclusion The findings challenge the hypothesis that an unusual attraction to the face directly motivates social approach behaviour in individuals with WS.

Ontology modeling for generation of clinical pathways

Purpose: Increasing costs of health care, fuelled by demand for high quality, cost-effective healthcare has drove hospitals to streamline their patient care delivery systems. One such systematic approach is the adaptation of Clinical Pathways (CP) as a tool to increase the quality of healthcare delivery. However, most organizations still rely on are paper-based pathway guidelines or specifications, which have limitations in process management and as a result can influence patient safety outcomes. In this paper, we present a method for generating clinical pathways based on organizational semiotics by capturing knowledge from syntactic, semantic and pragmatic to social level. Design/methodology/approach: The proposed modeling approach to generation of CPs adopts organizational semiotics and enables the generation of semantically rich representation of CP knowledge. Semantic Analysis Method (SAM) is applied to explicitly represent the semantics of the concepts, their relationships and patterns of behavior in terms of an ontology chart. Norm Analysis Method (NAM) is adopted to identify and formally specify patterns of behavior and rules that govern the actions identified on the ontology chart. Information collected during semantic and norm analysis is integrated to guide the generation of CPs using best practice represented in BPMN thus enabling the automation of CP. Findings: This research confirms the necessity of taking into consideration social aspects in designing information systems and automating CP. The complexity of healthcare processes can be best tackled by analyzing stakeholders, which we treat as social agents, their goals and patterns of action within the agent network. Originality/value: The current modeling methods describe CPs from a structural aspect comprising activities, properties and interrelationships. However, these methods lack a mechanism to describe possible patterns of human behavior and the conditions under which the behavior will occur. To overcome this weakness, a semiotic approach to generation of clinical pathway is introduced. The CP generated from SAM together with norms will enrich the knowledge representation of the domain through ontology modeling, which allows the recognition of human responsibilities and obligations and more importantly, the ultimate power of decision making in exceptional circumstances.

Governance, agricultural intensification and land sparing in tropical South America

In this paper we address two topical questions: How do the quality of governance and agricultural intensification impact on spatial expansion of agriculture? Which aspects of governance are more likely to ensure that agricultural intensification allows sparing land for nature? Using data from the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Bank, the World Database on Protected Areas, and the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, we estimate a panel data model for six South American countries and quantify the effects of major determinants of agricultural land expansion, including various dimensions of governance, over the period 1970–2006. The results indicate that the effect of agricultural intensification on agricultural expansion is conditional on the quality and type of governance. When considering conventional aspects of governance, agricultural intensification leads to an expansion of agricultural area when governance scores are high. When looking specifically at environmental aspects of governance, intensification leads to a spatial contraction of agriculture when governance scores are high, signaling a sustainable intensification process.

Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: a review of indicator‐based sustainability assessments in agriculture

Several methods for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems have been developed. These methods do not fully: (i) take into account the multi‐functionality of agriculture; (ii) include multidimensionality; (iii) utilize and implement the assessment knowledge; and (iv) identify conflicting goals and trade‐offs. This paper reviews seven recently developed multidisciplinary indicator‐based assessment methods with respect to their contribution to these shortcomings. All approaches include (1) normative aspects such as goal setting, (2) systemic aspects such as a specification of scale of analysis, (3) a reproducible structure of the approach. The approaches can be categorized into three typologies. The top‐down farm assessments focus on field or farm assessment. They have a clear procedure for measuring the indicators and assessing the sustainability of the system, which allows for benchmarking across farms. The degree of participation is low, potentially affecting the implementation of the results negatively. The top‐down regional assessment assesses the on‐farm and the regional effects. They include some participation to increase acceptance of the results. However, they miss the analysis of potential trade‐offs. The bottom‐up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches focus on a regional scale. Stakeholders are included throughout the whole process assuring the acceptance of the results and increasing the probability of implementation of developed measures. As they include the interaction between the indicators in their system representation, they allow for performing a trade‐off analysis. The bottom‐up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches seem to better overcome the four shortcomings mentioned above.

Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: a review of indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture

Methods for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems do often not fully (i) take into account the multifunctionality of agriculture, (ii) include multidimensionality, (iii) utilize and implement the assessment knowledge and (iv) identify conflicting goals and trade-offs. This chapter reviews seven recently developed multidisciplinary indicator-based assessment methods with respect to their contribution to these shortcomings. All approaches include (1) normative aspects such as goal setting, (2) systemic aspects such as a specification of scale of analysis and (3) a reproducible structure of the approach. The approaches can be categorized into three typologies: first, top-down farm assessments, which focus on field or farm assessment; second, top-down regional assessments, which assess the on-farm and the regional effects; and third, bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches, which focus on a regional scale. Our analysis shows that the bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches seem to better overcome the four shortcomings mentioned above.

Adaptive social protection: mapping the evidence and policy context in the agriculture sector in south Asia

An aim of government and the international community is to respond to global processes and crises through a range of policy and practical approaches that help limit damage from shocks and stresses. Three approaches to vulnerability reduction that have become particularly prominent in recent years are social protection (SP), disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA). Although these approaches have much in common, they have developed separately over the last two decades. However, given the increasingly complex and interlinked array of risks that poor and vulnerable people face, it is likely that they will not be sufficient in the long run if they continue to be applied in isolation from one another. In recognition of this challenge, the concept of Adaptive Social Protection (ASP) has been developed. ASP refers to a series of measures which aims to build resilience of the poorest and most vulnerable people to climate change by combining elements of SP, DRR and CCA in programmes and projects. The aim of this paper is to provide an initial assessment of the ways in which these elements are being brought together in development policy and practice. It does this by conducting a meta-analysis of 124 agricultural programmes implemented in five countries in south Asia. These are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan. The findings show that full integration of SP, DRR and CCA is relatively limited in south Asia, although there has been significant progress in combining SP and DRR in the last ten years. Projects that combine elements of SP, DRR and CCA tend to emphasise broad poverty and vulnerability reduction goals relative to those that do not. Such approaches can provide valuable lessons and insights for the promotion of climate resilient livelihoods amongst policymakers and practitioners.