GISQ, a multifunctional indicator of soil quality

We present here an indicator of soil quality that evaluates soil ecosystem services through a set of 5 subindicators, and further combines them into a single general Indicator of Soil Quality (GISQ). We used information derived from 54 properties commonly used to describe the multifaceted aspects of soil quality. The design and calculation of the indicators were based on sequences of multivariate analyses. Subindicators evaluated the physical quality, chemical fertility, organic matter stocks, aggregation and morphology of the upper 5 cm of soil and the biodiversity of soil macrofauna. A GISQ combined the different subindicators providing a global assessment of soil quality. Research was conducted in two hillside regions of Colombia and Nicaragua, with similar types of land use and socio-economic context. However, soil and climatic conditions differed significantly. In Nicaragua, soil quality was assessed at 61 points regularly distributed 200 m apart on a regular grid across the landscape. In Colombia, 8 plots representing different types of land use were arbitrarily chosen in the landscape and intensively sampled. Indicators that were designed in the Nicaragua site were further applied to the Colombian site to test for their applicability. In Nicaragua, coffee plantations, fallows, pastures and forest had the highest values of GISQ (1.00; 0.80; 0.78 and 0.77, respectively) while maize crops and eroded soils (0.19 and 0.10) had the lowest values. Examination of subindicator values allowed the separate evaluation of different aspects of soil quality: subindicators of organic matter, aggregation and morphology and biodiversity of macrofauna had the maximum values in coffee plantations (0.89; 0.72 and 0.56, respectively on average) while eroded soils had the lowest values for these indicators (0.10; 0.31 and 0.33, respectively). Indicator formulae derived from information gained at the Nicaraguan sites were not applicable to the Colombian situation and site-specific constants were calculated. This indicator allows the evaluation of soil quality and facilitates the identification of problem areas through the individual values of each subindicator. It allows monitoring of change through time and can guide the implementation of soil restoration technologies. Although GISQ formulae computed on a set of data were only valid at a regional scale, the methodology used to create these indices can be applied everywhere.

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 EU societal awareness of landscape indicator: a review of its meaning, utility and performance across different scales

There is increasing recognition that agricultural landscapes meet multiple societal needs and demands beyond provision of economic and environmental goods and services. Accordingly, there have been significant calls for the inclusion of societal, amenity and cultural values in agri-environmental landscape indicators to assist policy makers in monitoring the wider impacts of land-based policies. However, capturing the amenity and cultural values that rural agrarian areas provide, by use of such indicators, presents significant challenges. The EU social awareness of landscape indicator represents a new class of generalized social indicator using a top-down methodology to capture the social dimensions of landscape without reference to the specific structural and cultural characteristics of individual landscapes. This paper reviews this indicator in the context of existing agri-environmental indicators and their differing design concepts. Using a stakeholder consultation approach in five case study regions, the potential and limitations of the indicator are evaluated, with a particular focus on its perceived meaning, utility and performance in the context of different user groups and at different geographical scales. This analysis supplements previous EU-wide assessments, through regional scale assessment of the limitations and potentialities of the indicator and the need for further data collection. The evaluation finds that the perceived meaning of the indicator does not vary with scale, but in common with all mapped indicators, the usefulness of the indicator, to different user groups, does change with scale of presentation. This indicator is viewed as most useful when presented at the scale of governance at which end users operate. The relevance of the different sub-components of the indicator are also found to vary across regions.

Natural disasters, economic growth and sustainable development in China: an empirical study using provincial panel data

Using a newly developed integrated indicator system with entropy weighting, we analyzed the panel data of 577 recorded disasters in 30 provinces of China from 1985–2011 to identify their links with the subsequent economic growth. Meteorological disasters promote economic growth through human capital instead of physical capital. Geological disasters did not trigger local economic growth from 1999–2011. Generally, natural disasters overall had no significant impact on economic growth from 1985–1998. Thus, human capital reinvestment should be the aim in managing recoveries, and it should be used to regenerate the local economy based on long-term sustainable development.