|
|
|
|
|
| Marchand, Fleur; Social Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO); Ecosystem Management Research Group and IMDO, University of Antwerp ; fleur.marchand@ilvo.vlaanderen.be; Debruyne, Lies; Social Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO); lies.debruyne@ilvo.vlaanderen.be; Triste, Laure; Social Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO); laure.triste@ilvo.vlaanderen.be; Gerrard, Catherine; The Organic Research Centre; catherine.g@organicresearchcentre.com; Padel, Susanne; The Organic Research Centre; susanne.p@organicresearchcentre.com; Lauwers, Ludwig; Social Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO); Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Ghent ; Ludwig.lauwers@ilvo.vlaanderen.be. |
| Although the literature on sustainability assessment tools to support decision making in agriculture is rapidly growing, little attention has been paid to the actual tool choice. We focused on the choice of more complex integrated indicator-based tools at the farm level. The objective was to determine key characteristics as criteria for tool choice. This was done with an in-depth comparison of 2 cases: the Monitoring Tool for Integrated Farm Sustainability and the Public Goods Tool. They differ in characteristics that may influence tool choice: data, time, and budgetary requirements. With an enhanced framework, we derived 11 key characteristics to describe differences between the case tools. Based on the key characteristics, we defined 2 types of... |
| Tipo: Peer-Reviewed Insight |
Palavras-chave: Farm level; Full assessment; Rapid assessment; Sustainability assessment tool; Tool choice. |
| Ano: 2014 |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
