[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Working draft SUSTAINABILITY INDEX (fwd)
WORKING DRAFT - SUSTAINABILITY INDEX
(This model was presented to the SARE Administrative Council at their
strategic planning session 8/24/95 in Utah. An earlier version of
this model was first submitted to the 3rd. Consensus Building Meeting
Among IPM and Sustainable Agriculture Leaders held in Washington, DC, May
8-9, 1995 at the World Wildlife Fund Headquarters, and developed with
help from: Wendy Wintersteen (Dept. of Entomology, Iowa State
University), George Norton (Dept. of Ag and Ap Ec, Virginia Tech), George
Bird (Dept of Entomology, Michigan State University), Michael Sligh
(RAFI), Craig Hollingsworth (Dept of Entomology, University of
Massechusetts), Dan McGrath (OSU Extension, IPPC), Marcos Kogan (IPPC),
and Steven Carjuana (Pacific Rivers Council). Thanks to the Northwest
Area Foundation for their support - J.J. Haapala)
Definitions:
Foodshed Council - community, expert, industry, and stakeholder
representatives from a given community that identify the constraints to
sustainability, and evaluate the potential impact of a set of appropriate
positive practices.
Sustainability Index - The set of weighted positive practices available
to the producers within the region of the Foodshed Council.
Threshold - The percentage of adoption of positive practices required of
a producer or a community to qualify as "sustainable"
Positive practices -cultural practices, materials, and methods, that are
commonly held to favorably impact the given criteria.
Criteria - the set of outcome based indicators impacted by agricultural
practices.
Criteria:
1. soil quality
2. water quality
3. air quality
4. energy efficiency
5. economic viability
6. fish and wildlife habitat
7. quality of life (safety)
8. social acceptance
Model: The Sustainability Index
I. Weight criteria.
Weigh outcome based criteria according to their threat to immediate and
long-term sustainability.(10 = most threatening)
II. Identify positive practices.
Identify current and possible agricultural practices for their potential
of favorable impact on outcome based criteria.
III. Weight potential impact of positive practices on given criteria.
Evaluate positive practices for their potential for alleviating the
immediate and long term threats to sustainability.
IV. Cumulate
Multiply practice value by criterion weight to determine total value.
Add values to determine 100%
Determine percentage of adoption for qualification (ie. 80%).
Example: Columbia Basin Plateau
I. Weight criteria:
Criteria Weight Justification
A. Soil quality : 10 erosion, depletion of organic matter
B. Water quality: 8 erosion leading to turbidity,
siltification, lack of rainfall
C. Air quality: 6 burning, dust
D. Econ. viabil.: 10 margin of profit nonexistant
without deficit payments
E. Social acceptance: 5 growing urban animosity, perceived threat
to salmon
F. Quality of life: 4 consolidation of farming, decreased range
land
G. Wildlife habitat: 7 loss of anadromous fish habitat, large game
II. Evaluate Practices:
Criteria A B C D E F G Value
Weight 10 8 6 10 5 4 7 X
Practice:
Wheat fallow 1 0 0 3 2 6 3 106
Annual wheat 5 4 5 5 6 4 2 204
Chisel plow 6 3 2 4 4 2 1 ...
No till ...
Alternative crops
Legume rotation
Pasture rotation
Residue mgmnt.
Off stream watering
Burning
Fall plowing
Grass rotations
Windbreak
Scouting
Terraces
Monitoring
On-farm research
...
Total possible (e.g.) 4,943
III. Cumulate 4,943 points possible = 100%
Establish threshold for sustainability (e.g.) 80%
Note:
This model is to develop local input to establishing criteria and
evaluating practices. Its utility extends from Whole Farm Plans to
community, state, and national awards programs identifying
sustainable producers etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jhaap@tilth.org
J. J. Haapala * Oregon Tilth Research & Development
30848 Maple Drive * Junction City, OR 97448 * +1 (503) 998-5801
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------