This article was downloaded by: [American Public University System]

On: 10 February 2014, At: 07:56

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Agricultural

Sustainability
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tags20

Sustainability indicators, alternative

strategies and trade-offs in peasant
agroecosystems: analysing 15 case studies
from Latin America
a b c
Marta Astier , Erika N. Speelman , Santiago López-Ridaura , Omar R.
d e
Masera & Carlos E. Gonzalez-Esquivel
a
Centro de Investigaciones en Geografia Ambiental , Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de Mexico , Antigua Carretera a Patzcuaro 8701, Col. Exhacienda
de San Jose de la Huerta, CP 58190, Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico
b
Biological Farming Systems, Plant Sciences Group , Wageningen
University , Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708, PB, Wageningen, The Netherlands
c
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique , UMR Innovation , Campus
de la Gaillarde 2, place Viala 34060, Montpellier, France
d
Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas , Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México , Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro 8701, Col. Exhacienda de San
Jose de la Huerta, CP 58190, Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico
e
InCrops Enterprise Hub , University of East Anglia , Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
Published online: 15 Sep 2011.

To cite this article: Marta Astier , Erika N. Speelman , Santiago López-Ridaura , Omar R. Masera & Carlos
E. Gonzalez-Esquivel (2011) Sustainability indicators, alternative strategies and trade-offs in peasant
agroecosystems: analysing 15 case studies from Latin America, International Journal of Agricultural
Sustainability, 9:3, 409-422
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2011.583481

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication
are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &
Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
 whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use
can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 07:56 10 February 2014
 Sustainability indicators, alternative
strategies and trade-offs in peasant
agroecosystems: analysing 15 case
studies from Latin America
Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 07:56 10 February 2014

Marta Astier1, Erika N. Speelman2, Santiago López-Ridaura3, Omar R. Masera4 and

Carlos E. Gonzalez-Esquivel5 *
1
Centro de Investigaciones en Geografia Ambiental, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Antigua Carretera a
Patzcuaro 8701, Col. Exhacienda de San Jose de la Huerta, CP 58190 Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico
2
Biological Farming Systems, Plant Sciences Group, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB, Wageningen,
The Netherlands
3
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UMR Innovation, Campus de la Gaillarde 2, place Viala 34060, Montpellier,
France
4
Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro 8701,
Col. Exhacienda de San Jose de la Huerta, CP 58190 Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico
5
InCrops Enterprise Hub, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

In view of the urgent need to improve agroecosystem sustainability, several efforts have been made to evaluate the
effect of alternative strategies on key environmental and socioeconomic variables at the farm, community and
regional levels. Most peasant farmers manage complex and diverse agroecosystems, and constantly adapt
management strategies with multiple aims. A sustainability evaluation framework for peasant systems has been
applied in over 40 case studies in Latin America, from which 15 were analysed, focusing on the choice of indicators,
the effect of alternative strategies on agroecosystem sustainability and the trade-offs involved. Common indicators
include yields, income, agrodiversity and external input dependence. Alternative strategies include crop/product
diversification and soil conservation practices. Yields, income and agrodiversity improved in most cases, but in
some cases the establishment costs increased external input use. Trade-offs observed include improved
performance of a subsystem (i.e. crops) vs. decreased one in others (livestock, forestry) and increases in
productivity vs. decreases in stability, resilience and reliability. The difficulty of assessing systems in transition
towards alternative management was acknowledged by some evaluation teams. Applying the framework to such a
variety of cases allowed making the sustainability concept operational, promoted alternative strategies and
generated knowledge on agroecosystem processes among stakeholders.
Keywords: indicators; MESMIS framework; peasant agroecosystems; sustainability evaluation; trade-offs

Introduction be considered sustainable (López-Ridaura et al.,

2005; Rao and Rogers, 2006; Astier et al., 2008):
Sustainable development can be broadly defined as
‘the process by which material and spiritual needs of † High level of productivity by means of an efficient
human population would be met, without degrading and synergic use of natural and economic
and even improving the socio-environmental con- resources.
ditions that sustain them (Masera et al., 1999). Apply- † Stability, reliability and resilience, referring to the
ing this concept to natural resource management presence and effectiveness of the negative feedback
systems, these must comply with seven attributes, to processes that allow maintenance of a state of

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 9(3) 2011
PAGES 409–422, doi:10.1080/14735903.2011.583481 # 2011 Earthscan | Taylor & Francis Group | an Informa business. ISSN: 1473-5903 (print), 1747-762X (online). www.earthscan.co.uk/journals/ijas
 410 M. Astier et al.

dynamic balance at a constant productivity level, Thomassen and de Boer (2005), some examples of
under normal, shock or stress conditions. EIS include input–output analyses, ecological foot-
† Adaptability to cope with changing socio- prints and life cycle assessments. The most relevant
environmental conditions. indicators used in such studies include the use of
† Equity in the distribution of costs and benefits external inputs, greenhouse gas emissions and nutri-
amongst the different users of resources. ent balances. Other studies have concentrated on the
† Self-reliance, implying enough independence and evaluation of a few agri-environmental indicators,
self-sufficiency to maintain their performance such as soil quality (Doran, 2002), pesticide use,
despite the occurrence of external changes. crop rotation and fertility management (Braband
et al., 2003; Abbona et al., 2007) or agricultural bio-
Some authors have used most of these attributes, diversity (Büchs et al., 2003; Duelli and Obrist,
but named them differently (Pretty, 2008); others 2003).
have studied agroecosystem sustainability only Since EIS by definition do not comprise socioeco-
Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 07:56 10 February 2014

through resilience (Walker and Salt, 2006; Mayer, nomic aspects, sustainability evaluations involving
2008). Any natural resource management system is the complexity of agroecosystems are required.
by these attributes or principles unsustainable ‘if it Diverse frameworks for agroecosystem sustainability
depends on non-renewable inputs, cannot consistently evaluation have been proposed, but not always
and predictably deliver desired outputs, can only do applied. One of the first efforts developed is the frame-
this by requiring the cultivation of more land and/or work for the evaluation of sustainable land manage-
causes adverse and irreversible environmental ment (FESLM; Gameda and Dumanski, 1995).
impacts that threaten critical ecological functions Other methodologies for agricultural systems’ com-
(The Royal Society, 2009)’. parison at local and regional levels include those by
Along with the increase in ‘sustainability-oriented’ Andreoli and Tellarini (2000), Bosshard (2000),
policies at the regional and national levels, the need to Tellarini and Caporalli (2000), Cornelissen (2003)
improve information systems of decision-making in and Van Cauwenbergh et al. (2007), as well as
natural resource management has been emphasized. natural resource management system studies revised
This includes the design and monitoring of sus- by Galván-Miyoshi et al. (2008) and Mayer (2008).
tainability indicators (UNDP, 1993). Some of the Despite this progress, the dissemination of frame-
evaluation frameworks include the pressure-state- works, indicators and results of evaluations has been
response model of the OECD, mainly used at the slow. An important effort in this direction is the col-
national level, or those aimed at the public to calculate lection of case studies of agroecosystem sustainability
the environmental impact of human activity, such as evaluation, in which the framework for the evaluation
the ‘ecological footprint’ (Wackernagel and Rees, of management systems, using indicators of sustain-
1996; OECD, 2001). ability (MESMIS, for its Spanish acronym), has
An important stream of sustainability-oriented been applied (Masera and López-Ridaura, 2000;
studies is based on an agroecosystems approach. Astier and Hollands, 2005; Speelman et al., 2007;
Agroecosystems can be defined as resource manage- Astier et al., 2008). This framework was originally
ment systems aimed at agricultural or forest pro- proposed as an adaptation of the FESLM framework
duction. The need to reduce their environmental to peasant agroecosystems, with emphasis on Latin
impact and their risks to human health has led to America.
substantial work in strategies such as reducing or The majority of farmers in this region manage
replacing synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, reintro- highly complex agricultural systems at a small-scale,
ducing traditional practices such as intercropping on a subsistence level, representing 63 per cent of total
and applying integrated fertility and pest management farmland (ECLAC, 2009). Here, the agroecological
strategies, in order to reduce energy, nutrient and movement has attracted millions of farmers who,
economic losses. It is therefore fundamental to through social institutions of different kinds, are pur-
analyse the impact of such practices on the sustain- suing more sustainable agriculture and rural commu-
ability of agroecosystems at the farm, community nities. Alternative agriculture is practiced by
and regional levels. integrating the key management principles for sus-
An important contribution to sustainability evalu- tainability resumed by Pretty (2008): (i) biological
ation is the use of environmental impact studies and ecological processes such as nutrient cycling
(EIS) on agricultural systems. According to and positive biological interactions; (ii) minimizing

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

 Sustainability indicators, alternative strategies and trade-offs in peasant agroecosystems 411

the use of non-renewable inputs; (iii) making pro- establishing a framework to define the dimensions,
ductive use of farmers knowledge and skills, reintro- attributes and criteria, to derive indicators with their
ducing traditional practices; and (iv) making evaluation units and optimum (or ‘ideal’) values;
productive use of people’s collective capacities. and finally communicating results, which will in
Mainstream agricultural innovations in the region turn provide feedback to management decisions.
have shown not to be scale- or resource-independent, Once the recommendations from the evaluation
mostly favouring large-scale farmers in homogeneous process are applied, a second stage can then be
environments (Pretty et al., 2003). Farms managed by initiated, thus repeating the cycle (Figure 1).
peasants often comprise several small plots located in The framework is built upon four principles: (i) sus-
different agroecological zones, making blanket man- tainability is defined by seven dynamic, systemic attri-
agement improvements difficult to apply. In addition, butes: productivity, stability, reliability, resilience,
most conventional innovations require well-endowed adaptability, equity and self-reliance; (ii) sustainabil-
conditions and monetary inputs, which are usually ity evaluations are only valid for a specific manage-
Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 07:56 10 February 2014

neither present nor available to small-scale, resource- ment system, on a specific spatial and temporal
poor, subsistence farmers. When these innovations are scale; (iii) the evaluation process is participatory,
implemented into complex agroecosystems, there are including internal and external participants; and (iv)
often trade-offs between the multiple outcomes sustainability is assessed through the comparison of
pursued by peasants (Speelman et al., 2006). There- systems either simultaneously (i.e. a conventional or
fore, alternative, more sustainable management ‘reference’ system and an ‘alternative’ one), or
options are needed in order to implement the throughout time (López-Ridaura et al., 2002).
low-input, site-specific innovations appropriate for The determination of sustainability criteria and
these complex agroecosystems (Pretty et al., 2003). indicators varies according to the approach followed
The MESMIS framework can be considered as an by the evaluation team and the specific case under
influential methodology in sustainability evaluation, study. Thus, the application of a specific list of indi-
having been applied to more than 40 case studies cators for all situations, as well as the reduction of
across Europe and Latin America, particularly in indicators to a single numeric index, is of little
Mexico (Speelman et al., 2007, 2008). These case
studies are the basis for a great deal of detailed infor-
mation on management strategies developed to
increase agroecosystem sustainability. This paper pre-
sents the results of an analysis of 15 Latin American
MESMIS case studies. The aims of the study were:
(i) to analyse the sustainability indicators selected in
the different case studies; (ii) to assess the perform-
ance of alternative resource management systems;
and (iii) to analyse common strategies and trade-offs
in sustainability attributes.

The MESMIS framework

The MESMIS framework was developed by a multi-
institutional team led by the Interdisciplinary Group
of Appropriate Rural Technology (GIRA, for its
Spanish acronym), a Mexican non-governmental
organization (NGO). The framework has an iterative,
holistic and interdisciplinary approach, which allows
for a comparison of conventional and alternative man-
agement systems. Its operational structure is a cyclical
one. Several phases are considered to guide and
implement the process, including: defining the Figure 1 | The MESMIS sustainability evaluation framework
vision, context and objectives of the system; Source: López-Ridaura et al. (2002).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

 412 M. Astier et al.

value. Therefore, criteria and evaluation methods indicators in our 15 case studies. For this purpose,
must be specified to each case study (López-Ridaura we calculated the difference in standardized indicator
et al., 2002). According to regional averages, values of the alternative system minus the reference
expected values or desirable thresholds, optimum system. The values of the main strategy were plotted
values have to be defined for each indicator. against the three most used indicators for all case
Articulation between objectives, indicators and studies. The resulting graph provides a quick view
reference values is a critical aspect of the evaluation of the existing trade-offs, with the most commonly
process. Without clear objectives and targets, indi- proposed road directed towards more sustainable
cators can easily lead to uncertainty and misinterpre- agro-ecosystem management.
tation (Potts, 2006). Another factor to consider
when selecting indicators that may provide an appro- Results and discussion
priate feedback to resource users is to select those that
present lower costs and operational simplicity during The case studies
Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 07:56 10 February 2014

measurement. From over 40 case studies that used the MESMIS fra-
mework in Latin America, 15 were selected to be ana-
Methods of analysis lysed in depth. The case studies were chosen for the
quality and quantity of available data and had been
Secondary data from 15 selected case studies were carried out over two to four years. Most of the case
analysed. First, the 15 proposed alternative manage- studies had been previously compiled. Masera and
ment strategies were compared in order to find those López-Ridaura (2000) documented five case studies
commonly proposed to improve system’s sustainabil- carried out during a two-year period in rural
ity. The indicators defined and measured in all case Mexico. Additional seven case studies originating
studies were then analysed and used as a proxy for from Central and South America were published by
the view that stakeholders have of their systems and LEISA Revista de Agroecologı́a, (Gianella and
the importance they attach to individual subsystems. Chávez, 2003), of which six were documented more
Afterwards, the capacity of the alternative manage- extensively by Astier and Hollands (2005). Two
ment system to improve sustainability was analysed other studies from Mexico’s Central highlands were
by comparing the indicator values of the conventional documented by Villa (2002) and Brunett et al.
and the alternative systems, quantitatively and quali- (2005) and another one was led by Duarte Silveira
tatively. For each case study, a qualitative value (i.e. (2005) in Honduras. The analysis presented here is
increase or decrease) of the effect of alternative man- based on secondary data gathered from the above-
agement on each indicator was put into a table, in mentioned resources. The organizations involved in
order to create a quick synopsis. For a quantitative the evaluations ranged from universities and research
analysis, MESMIS proposes standardization of indi- institutes to NGOs and farmers’ groups, as well as to a
cator values to allow for comparison. Standardized combination of these. The main characteristics of the
indicator values show the percentage in relation to case studies are shown in Table 1.
an optimum value. Optimum indicator values were The majority of case studies evaluated two manage-
identified per case study. Standard indicator values ment systems; one being the most commonly used
of the reference systems were plotted against those locally, also known as the reference system; and the
of the alternative ones, in order to identify improve- other involving alternative resource management
ments and/or deterioration through alternative man- strategies aiming at increased sustainability.
agement, which was supposed to improve However, two case studies used a different approach
sustainability. to define the evaluated systems. In the Purhepecha
Finally, the effect of alternative management strat- region of Central Mexico (Astier et al., 2005), a tra-
egies on the most commonly used indicators was ditional system and a commercial one, both present
investigated by means of a simple trade-off analysis. in the region, were evaluated. In the Yucatan Penin-
Commonly, management changes result in trade-offs, sula (Moya et al., 2005), four cropping systems
where some aspects or indicators are improved and were evaluated, of which two were recognized as
others are worsened (Speelman et al., 2006). To ident- reference systems and two as alternative ones. In
ify some of these trade-offs, we selected the most most cases, the alternative systems had been practiced
commonly used strategy to improve system sustain- for a relatively short period of time, ranging from two
ability and the effects on some commonly used to four years.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

 Sustainability indicators, alternative strategies and trade-offs in peasant agroecosystems 413

Table 1 | Main features of the analysed case studies

include legumes such as velvet bean (Mucuna prur-
applying the MESMIS framework iens), bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), pea (Pisum
sativum L.), forage species such as sorghum
Concept Description
(Sorghum vulgare L.), ryegrass (Lolium perenne
Agroecosystem Crops (4) and Lolium multiflorum) and clover (Trifolium
Crops-livestock (2)
repens), forest and fruit trees and dairy cattle.
† Improvement measures in soil management were
Forestry (1) defined in a third of these alternative systems.
Agroforestry (1) These measures included: mechanical soil conser-
vation measures (terraces and tree planting);
Crops-livestock-forestry (7)
adding organic matter in the form of cattle or
Production Subsistence (7) green manure; practicing zero or minimum
objective tillage; implementing crop rotation; and improving
Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 07:56 10 February 2014

Commercial (1)
fertilization.
Mixed (7) † The reduction of external inputs such as agro-
Alternative Agroecological practices (soil chemicals. In addition, methods were implemented
system conservation, diversification, crop to use both internal and external resources more
association) (7) efficiently. Practices such as the use of green
Organic (2) manure and the collection and use of cattle
manure in fields, as well as the use of local crop
Resource intensification (5)
species and practices of reciprocity among
Community management (1) peasant families (including trading of inputs, pro-
Spatial scale of Individual farms (5) ducts and labour), were therefore defined.
evaluation
Community (6) Alternative systems in these case studies had many
Cooperative/farmers organization (4) similarities with the findings of a survey done by
Evaluation team Academic (7)
Pretty et al. (2003) of 208 projects (of which 45 origi-
nated from Latin America) on sustainable agricultural
NGO (4) practices and technologies in developing countries. In
Farmers group (2) addition, Tengö and Belfrage (2004) also described
management strategies similar to those in our case
Mixed (2)
studies, such as diversification, the use of green and
Project impact 1 community (20– 100 families) (5) cattle manure and intercropping with legumes.
1 community (500 families) (1) Across their case studies, Tengö and Belfrage
(2004) found up to 45 per cent similarity between
2 – 10 communities (100– 200 families) systems in regions as different as Sweden and Tanza-
(5)
nia. This supports the strength of these strategies in the
10– 20 communities (200– 1000 light of sustainability evaluation.
families) (4) The three most frequently used practices in the
alternative systems relate to stability, reliability and
resilience. These attributes refer directly to the conser-
Stakeholders who participated in the case studies vation of the system’s resource base in a changing
designed, adopted and adapted management strat- environment. Natural, human and economic resources
egies as a response to the most important necessities for the adequate functioning of agroecosystems are
of rural families and communities managing determined by the presence of functional and struc-
resources. In many cases, the strategies used to tural ecological diversity and social regulation mech-
increase sustainability were based on agroecological anisms (Masera et al., 1999; López-Ridaura et al.,
principles. The most frequently defined strategies in 2005). The strategies developed in these case studies
the alternative systems were: demonstrate the stakeholders’ interests in improving
the systems behaviour under external shocks. The
† Diversification through the introduction or rescue capacity of a system to cope with change has been a
of crop and livestock species. Some examples neglected aspect of natural resource management

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

 414 M. Astier et al.

(Berkes and Folke, 2002). However, strategies that least one of the products in all case studies. This is
address a system’s behaviour in a changing environ- shown in Figure 2, where almost all indicators are
ment, such as the diversification of species and econ- found in the upper left half of the productivity
omic activities, are receiving increasing attention graphs. In some case studies where yield was
from researchers. This focus on diversification is measured for various products, alternative manage-
also seen in small-scale projects, such as the case ment increased yields for one product, whereas
studies described here. yields decreased for the other product(s). Examples
Diversification improves the system’s capacity to of this are the alternative systems in Astier et al.
cope with and respond to fluctuations in its environ- (2005) and Brunett et al. (2005), where forage and
ment; it increases system stability, reliability and resi- milk yields increased, while maize yields decreased.
lience. It is a method generally used to reduce risks of Due to the complexity of many agroecosystems, the
total crop failure due to external factors such as simple objective of increasing income and yield can
drought, flood, pest and diseases. It has been argued have these ‘internal’ trade-offs, where the objective
Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 07:56 10 February 2014

that the internal regulation of functions in agroecosys- is reached for one product at the cost of the other
tems strongly depend on the amount of plant and one(s).
animal biodiversity present (Altieri, 1999). Cost–benefit ratios were in most cases higher or
equal to those of the reference systems, and in more
Definition of indicators and comparative than half the case studies higher yields and income
performance values were achieved at higher production costs.
Indicators were derived from the critical points Alternative management resulted in increased
defined by the evaluation teams and reflected mainly income in all but two case studies, where this indicator
aspects weakening system sustainability. Some simi- was measured (Villa, 2002; Gomes de Almeida and
larities were found in the choice of critical points Bianconi, 2005). However, in the latter case the
and indicators, as shown in Table 2. income from vegetable production (with a higher
value) increased, while income from milk production
Productivity decreased.
Most indicators measured were related to this attri-
bute, for example yield, income and efficiency (such Stability, reliability and resilience
as cost–benefit ratio). This demonstrates the impor- The indicator ‘agrodiversity’ was the most frequently
tance stakeholders attach to the productivity of their defined one in relation to all three attributes. The
systems and the important role these systems play in concept of agrodiversity usually refers to the
earning a livelihood in rural areas. Productivity indi- number of useful species/varieties in managed eco-
cators are also easily quantifiable. Yield was the systems, including crops, semi-domesticated plants
most widely used indicator; measured in all but two and wild species (Brookfield, 2001). Distinctions
case studies. Yield measurements ranged from one can be made between planned diversity, which is the
to five different products, depending on the impor- direct result of management, and associated diversity,
tance attributed to them by the stakeholders. For an indirect one. It has been argued that the diversity of
example, Alemán et al. (2005), measured yields any system is not adequately represented simply by
included crop, livestock and forest products. the number of species (or genotypes) present, but by
Income was another important indicator reflecting the functional relationships between them in space
productivity. It was used in almost half the case and time (Swift et al., 2004; Jackson et al., 2007).
studies, although the indicator was less diversely In the case studies analysed here, agrodiversity was
measured than yield. In subsistence-oriented largely measured by a simple calculation of the
systems, income was generally obtained from sales number of visible or useful plant species. However,
of produce exceeding home consumption. Systems in two case studies, animal diversity was measured,
that produced for both subsistence and commercial and in others, two different types of diversity were
sales purposes usually produced only one marketable measured. Measuring complete agrodiversity, includ-
product or cash crop. As a result, only the total income ing associated diversity, was in most cases beyond the
or income from these cash crops was measured. scope of the evaluations and beyond the capabilities of
The majority of the alternative systems increased the evaluation teams to be measured in a deeper
values for indicators related to this attribute. Higher manner (which could be done by including unplanned
yields were measured in the alternative system for at and belowground diversity).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

 Sustainability indicators, alternative strategies and trade-offs in peasant agroecosystems 415

Table 2 | Critical points and indicators most frequently Table 2 | Continued

used in analysed case studies
Attribute Frequently Frequently used
Attribute Frequently Frequently used defined critical indicators
defined critical indicators points
points
Self-reliance High Organizational issues
Productivity Low Yield e.g. maize yield dependency on e.g. level of
productivity (kgyr21; kgha21), wood external inputs participation in decision
yield (gyr21) making, organization
structure
Low income Income e.g. net income
($yr21), net income per Deficient Dependence on
subsystem ($yr21) organization external inputs e.g. use
and costs of external
High labour Efficiency e.g. cost/
Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 07:56 10 February 2014

inputs ($yr21), level of

intensity benefit ratio
dependency on external
Production costs input (%)

Stability, Monoculture Agro-diversity e.g.

reliability and number of species
resilience
Agrodiversity is a complex, non-linear phenomenon,
Soil Soil quality e.g. soil whose many mechanisms and relationships are not yet
degradation organic mater content fully understood. The minimum or optimum level of
(OM), nutrient contents diversity and optimal number of species to maintain
([N], [P], [K])
ecosystem services remains unknown (Swift et al.,
High use of Erosion e.g. soil losses 2004). However, site-specific, ‘optimum’ indicator
agrochemicals (Mgha21 yr21) values were defined in most case studies, reflecting
Presence of Use of agrochemicals e.g. the highest number of useful species in a system
regulation fertilizers (kgha21yr21), known to the evaluation team. In five of the nine
mechanisms pesticides (kgha21yr21) cases where agrodiversity was measured, the indicator
Regulation and control increased for at least one of the measuring units. Diver-
mechanisms (sanctions sity decreased in Astier et al. (2000) and Moya et al.
and vigilance) enforced (2005). However, both these case studies evaluated
by social institutions for alternative systems that were modernized and in
the rational use of which diversification was not an objective. In Duarte
natural resources (soil, Silveira (2005), conventional agro-forestry coffee
water, grassland)
farms showed the same value in this indicator as that
Adaptability Low capacity to Adoption rate e.g. of organic ones. In Gomero and Velázquez (2005),
implement number of farmers the number of agro-forestry species increased, while
innovations adopting innovations, the number of animal species decreased.
capacity to adapt to
changes
Other indicators linked to the attributes of stability,
resilience and reliability included the presence of
Lack of Knowledge of social regulation mechanisms, soil quality and soil
traditional innovation e.g. access erosion. The presence of social regulation mechan-
knowledge to education,
mechanisms to extend
isms indicates the effective functioning of social insti-
knowledge, capacity tutions to secure the sustainable use of land. These
building institutions can play an important role in the use of
common natural resources, by establishing and enfor-
Equity Unequal Stakeholder
distribution of involvement e.g.
cing regulations or sanctions. The presence of social
benefits participation of women, regulation mechanisms was seen in eight of the case
men/women studies, with six of them improving indicator values
participation ratio, (Table 3). It is interesting to note that six cases took
number of beneficiaries, place with indigenous groups. It has been proven
distribution of benefits that social bonds and norms are key factors in the sus-
Continued tainable management of common resources (Pretty,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

 416 M. Astier et al.
Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 07:56 10 February 2014

Figure 2 | Standardized indicator values by attribute of alternative vs. reference systems

2003; Tengö and Belfrage, 2004; Ostrom, 2009) and this indicator decreased, highlighting the complexity
that local governing institutions (and laws) play an of adopting alternative strategies. In Villa (2002)
important role in product extraction and the status of and Martı́nez (2005), the objective was to evaluate
forests, grasslands and soil (Bluffstone et al., 2000). existing management systems, and therefore no
Results of the soil-related indicators revealed tha,t in attempt was made by the evaluation teams to
a few case studies, soil quality improved in the implement alternative management strategies
alternative systems, despite having been established (Table 3).
for a relatively short period of time.
Equity
Adaptability This attribute was mainly evaluated through the indi-
Indicators reflecting the adaptability of systems were cator ‘distribution of benefits among farmers’. In the
most commonly defined as ‘rate of adoption’ and majority of case studies, costs and benefits were con-
‘capacity building’. In 11 of 15 case studies, ‘capacity sidered to be distributed in an equitable manner,
building’ was higher in the alternative systems than it ensuring both economic accessibility and cultural
was in the reference ones. This indicator reflects the acceptance of proposed alternatives. However, in
capability of local inhabitants to implement alterna- three cases (Astier et al., 2000; Ocampo-Fletes,
tive systems and to generate knowledge among 2004; Moya et al., 2005) an unequal distribution of
farmers. Six of the alternative systems were success- benefits occurred in response to the prerequisites
fully adopted by a substantial group of farmers. that existed for implementing modernized alternative
However, in an equal number of cases the value of management. For example, Ocampo-Fletes (2004)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

 Sustainability indicators, alternative strategies and trade-offs in peasant agroecosystems 417

reported an unequal distribution of profits within the

Organizational
irrigation system in Mexico, where a small group of

47 (7)

27 (4)
13 (2)
level

7 (1)
7 (1)
the population obtained half the total profits from agri-
cultural products.
Self-reliance

Self-reliance
Indicators related to this attribute revealed infor-
Independence
of external

mation on the capability of a social system to

inputs
Table 3 | Qualitative changes in indicator values of alternative systems in relation to reference systems (per cent of cases, n 5 15)

33 (5)
33 (5)

20 (3)
7 (1)
respond to external changes, while maintaining its

7 (1)
identity and values. The indicators used focused
mainly on external inputs and organizational level.
Indicators concerning the use, dependence or inde-
pendence on external inputs were most often defined
Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 07:56 10 February 2014

to reflect self-reliance. To avoid confusion, the term

Equity, Distribution

‘independence of external inputs’ was chosen to

of benefits

reflect both of these indicators, and data were adjusted

67 (10)
20 (3)

13 (2)

accordingly. Fertilizers and pesticides, both organic

0

and synthetic, were referred to as external inputs in

most studies. However, in some cases the term was
given a broader meaning in the form of traction use,
purchased seeds and external labour costs. Astier
et al. (2005) and Brunett et al. (2005) quantified the
Capacity
building

73 (11)

indicator in two ways, one referring to physical

13 (2)
7 (1)

7 (1)

inputs, such as feed and fertilizers, and the other to

Adaptability

monetary inputs, such as subsidies or institutional aid.

Five alternative systems proved to be more depen-
adoption

dent on external inputs than did their reference

Rate of

40 (6)
40 (6)

13 (2)
7 (1)

counterparts (Figure 2; Table 3). High investment

0

costs and, in some cases, higher production costs

were associated with the implementation of alterna-
mechanisms

tive management strategies. Higher labour require-

Stability, resilience and

(sanctions)
Regulation

ments can prove particularly effective in bringing

40 (6)

33 (5)
27 (4)

about a redistribution of benefits in areas where the

0
0
reliability

labour force is underemployed (IFAD, 2005).

However, high labour intensity can represent a
serious limitation in many of those rural communities
diversity

where the opportunity cost of local labour is very

33 (5)
13 (2)

40 (6)
Agro

7 (1)

7 (1)

high, or where high migration rates led to labour scar-

city, as in many rural communities of Mexico (Astier
et al., 2005; Moya et al., 2005).
Income

40 (6)

47 (7)

Evaluation teams noted that the loss of indepen-

7 (1)
7 (1)

dence on external inputs negatively influenced the

Productivity

adoption of alternative management strategies. In

these cases, implementation costs or higher pro-
duction costs were revealed to negatively influence
53 (8)

13 (2)

13 (2)
20 (3)
Yield

the farmers’ adoption of alternatives. In one case

0

(Martı́nez, 2005), production costs in the alternative

system decreased with time.
The organizational level improved in most of those
No change
Indicator/

Decrease
Attribute

change

detected
Increase

cases where the indicator was evaluated. Institutional

results
Mixed

presence through projects can be pivotal in promoting

Not

not just alternative management strategies, but also

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

 418 M. Astier et al.

stronger community organization. However, it has high agrodiversity include reduced pest damage, a
also been found that well-organized communities more efficient use of nutrients and weed control
are more successful in attracting external support for (Francis, 1986). These advantages reduce the need
their projects (Brunett et al., 2005). for external inputs. However, in many cases, alterna-
tive management strategies increased diversity at the
Trade-offs in implementing alternative cost of losing the ‘independence of external inputs’.
systems The inclusion of implementation costs as external
It was only in one case study (Alemán et al., 2005) inputs may explain this. A similar situation occurred
that the alternative system increased all indicators in cases where yield was increased by alternative
selected by the evaluation team. This case study eval- management, but where agrodiversity decreased.
uated an extensive crop-livestock-forestry system These cases include the evaluations where alternative
(reference) and an intensified one (alternative). The management was a modernized system as compared
main strategy in the alternative system was centred to the reference system, with increased yields. Such
Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 07:56 10 February 2014

on providing high-quality forage (from agricultural conflicts among system’s objectives, such as reducing
residues and selected shrub species), livestock breed- poverty and achieving biodiversity goals, have also
ing and a more efficient use of manure. In all other been reported by Hengsdijk et al. (2007). It is also
case studies, alternative management increased interesting to observe a series of points along the ver-
some indicators at the cost of others (Table 3). The tical axis, which reflect gradual levels of increase in
MESMIS data integration step clearly points out that productivity without change in agrodiversity.
trade-offs must be taken into account when consider-
ing a management change. Furthermore, it shows yet
again the complexity of peasant agroecosystems and General discussion
the difficulty in developing alternative management
strategies that would improve the overall sustainabil- The meta-analysis carried out in this study allowed us
ity of a system. This step is of the utmost importance to systematize and compare case studies in a simple,
in emphasizing that no ‘cure-all’ management option yet comprehensive manner. The identified similarities
exists. in alternative strategies and trade-offs can aid future
Our interest lay in investigating the presence of efforts by supplying hands-on information. Two
common strategies in the development of alternative issues recurred in the development and evaluation of
agricultural systems in the context of small-scale alternative systems in various case studies. First, the
farming, as well as in that of common trade-offs. explicit focus on quantifiable indicators, as suggested
Therefore, we performed a simple trade-off analysis by the MESMIS framework, excluded many impor-
of the main strategy used to increase sustainability tant indicators from being incorporated in the evalu-
on the most commonly used indicators for pro- ation. Especially in farming systems within
ductivity and stability. The relative change in yield indigenous communities, decisions are made to
was plotted against the relative change in agrodiver- satisfy non-quantifiable aspects, such as culture, self-
sity (Figure 3). The top right corner of the graph sufficiency and food preferences, which should be
reflects synergies (both indicators increase), whereas taken into account in future evaluations. It should
the top left and bottom right corner represent trade- also be kept in mind that preferences of farmers for
offs (one indicator increases at the expense of the specific indicators are not taken into account in the
other one). analysis. In practice, this means that a decrease in
This shows that more-diverse systems were capable one indicator (yield, income) vs. increase in other
of being more productive than were their reference indicators (agrodiversity) might still cause the
counterparts. Previous studies have also reported farmer to reject the alternative management strategy.
more efficient land use (Mäder et al., 2002) and The choice of the authors to focus this paper on the
increased productivity in multi-crop agroecosystems commonalities between the case studies, rather than
(Vandermeer, 1989; Amador and Gliessman, 1990; the differences, and therefore focusing on a small
Pretty et al., 2006; Funes-Monzote et al., 2009). group of indicators, excluded detailed information
Viglizzo and Roberto (1998) also concluded that stab- on rarely used indicators.
ility is improved by diversification in agricultural As mentioned earlier, alternative systems were most
systems, whereas productivity is maintained or often quite new to the region. This resulted in measure-
enhanced. The advantages of diverse systems with ments often taken from systems still in transition,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

 Sustainability indicators, alternative strategies and trade-offs in peasant agroecosystems 419
Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 07:56 10 February 2014

Figure 3 | Effect of diversification by alternative management (expressed by the indicator agrodiversity) on the indicators
yield, independence of external inputs and income

which was the case in about half of the studies ana- When indicators are only measured once, these
lyzed, where alternative management had only been initial costs can lead to wrong conclusions. Infor-
in place for less than three years and where the mation on the system under analysis, being either in
system had not reached a stable, dynamic state. Data a stable dynamic state or in a transitional state, is
collected from systems in transition will not always important for drawing conclusions on the effects of
readily show the effects of alternative management, alternative management strategies on indicators.
especially when long-term trends are being measured. There are only two cases where the evolution of indi-
This is the case of most variables or indicators measur- cators related to productivity and adaptability were
ing soil properties. Additionally, high production costs measured. In Astier et al. (2005), yields were
are generally seen in cases where the alternative man- measured over a four-year period, and the trend of
agement system is still in the initial or transitional the conventional system having a higher yield than
period (Astier, 1996; Morant, 2004; IFAD, 2005). the alternative one was maintained. However in Mar-
Farmers have to invest in an initial stock of new tı́nez (2005), the benefit:cost ratio and dependence of
animal breeds and seeds (such as green manure or external inputs were measured in years 1, 2 and 6 after
special crops), organic matter in the form of manure the alternative system was implemented, with an
and hired labour for weeding (Astier, 1996; Guevara improving trend in both indicators.
et al., 2000; Astier et al., 2005; IFAD, 2005; Martı́nez, The process of sustainability evaluation and
2005; Moya et al., 2005). systems improvement is lengthy and requires long-

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

 420 M. Astier et al.

term sustainability evaluations including different agroecosystems. Most alternative farming systems
indicator assessment during different phases (i.e. showed the ability to increase agro-diversity and
transition, stable) of the system. It is important to at least one of the defined yield and income indi-
note that initial implementation costs demonstrate cators. Aspects that limited sustainability were
the need to support farmers in their effort to increase related to adaptability and self-reliance, as some
sustainability of their systems (e.g. Astier, 1996; alternative systems presented a higher dependency
Lohr and Salomonsson, 2000; Pretty et al., 2003; on external inputs (which was correlated with
Morant, 2004). higher investment costs). In more than half of the
The single most important factor to promote more case studies, higher yields or income were achieved
sustainable forms of agriculture is the availability of at the expense of higher production costs. Pro-
a reliable institutional support system. These fessionals from the evaluation teams mentioned
systems can facilitate farmers’ initial access to the that this phenomenon constrained the adoption of
main components of alternative systems, which they alternative systems. Nevertheless, these were
Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 07:56 10 February 2014

may find difficult to reach, such as technology, implemented by influential groups of farmers in
funding, inputs, stocking of cattle and seeds and mar- almost half the case studies.
keting. None of the cases revised here was part of a The alternative systems that were evaluated were
regional or national programme promoting sustain- relatively new for almost all case studies, meaning
able agriculture. Alternative agroecosystems can be that they were still in a transitional stage. This fact
economically, environmentally and socially sustain- underlines the importance of long-term efforts in sus-
able, but without appropriate policy support, they tainability evaluation. Information on the estimated
are condemned to remain exceptional experiences time length of transition, and the associated invest-
(Pretty, 2003, 2008). ment costs, is essential for farmers who are interested
in adopting new management strategies.
Analysing case studies through standardized indi-
Conclusions and recommendations cator values was useful in detecting trade-offs and
The need for more sustainable agroecosystems is an synergies in comparative systems analyses. This
urgent one, and logical evaluation processes are type of efforts, guided by a framework such as
required to determine the success of alternative man- MESMIS, proved to improve knowledge on agroe-
agement strategies. Such strategies, used in the case cosystem performance, which can aid decision-
studies, were often based on agroecological prin- making among stakeholders. This study will aid
ciples, such as soil conservation practices and external future efforts towards sustainability evaluation in
input reduction. The most frequently used strategy peasant agroecosystems, by providing information
was crop and product diversification. on the type of indicators selected, the performance
Most attention was given by the evaluation teams to of alternative resource management systems and
the environmental and economic dimensions of sus- the common strategies and trade-offs in pursuing
tainability. Indicators for social sustainability were sustainability.
less frequent in the case studies. Indicators most com-
monly used were yield and income, reflecting pro- Acknowledgements
ductivity; agrodiversity and presence of regulation
mechanisms, related to stability, reliability and resili- This study is part of the larger MESMIS programme,
ence. The independence of external inputs was under the project ‘Evaluación de Sustentabilidad de
defined as an indicator of self-reliance. In many case Sistemas Complejos Socio-Ambientales, ECOSUR-
studies, indicators were quantified for several pro- UNAM-GIRA (2007–2010)’, financed by the
ducts, demonstrating the systems’ complexity and Mexican Council for Science and Technology
the relative importance stakeholders pay to different (CONACYT, grant 02464). We would like to thank
parts of their systems. Amy E. Snively for her constructive comments on
In all but one of the case studies, some indicator the manuscript. The authors express their gratitude
values were increased at the costs of others by to all farmers and researchers that used the
alternative management. This clearly demonstrated MESMIS framework, and who shared with us their
the difficulty in developing more sustainable documents and experiences.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

 Sustainability indicators, alternative strategies and trade-offs in peasant agroecosystems 421

References Brunett, P. L., González, E. C., Garcı́a, H. L. A., 2005,

‘Evaluación de la sustentabilidad de dos agroecosistemas
campesinos de producción de maı́z y leche, utilizando
Abbona, E. A., Sarandón, S. J., Marasas, M. E., Astier, M., indicadores’, Livestock Research for Rural Development
2007, ‘Ecological sustainability evaluation of traditional 17(7), 78 [available at www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/7/pere17078.htm].
management in different vineyard systems in Berisso, Büchs, W., Harenberg, A., Zimmermann, J., Weiss, B., 2003,
Argentina’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment ‘Biodiversity, the ultimate agri-environmental indicator?
119(3– 4), 335– 345. Potential and limits for the application of faunistic elements
Alemán, S. T., Nahed, T. J., López, M. J., 2005, ‘Evaluación de as gradual indicators in agroecosystems’, Agriculture,
la sustentabilidad de dos sistemas de producción ovina en Ecosystems and Environment 98, 99 –123.
comunidades tzotziles’, in: M. Astier, J. Hollands (eds), Cornelissen, T., 2003, ‘The two faces of sustainability. Fuzzy
Sustentabilidad y Campesinado. Seis experiencias evaluation of sustainable development’, PhD thesis,
Agroecologicas en Latinoamerica, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
MundiPrensa-GIRA-ILEIA-ICCO, Mexico, 11–54. Doran, J. W., 2002, ‘Soil health and global sustainability:
Altieri, M. A., 1999, ‘Applying agroecology to enhance the translating science into practice’, Agriculture, Ecosystems
productivity of peasant farming systems in Latin America’, and Environment 88, 119–127.
Environment, Development and Sustainability 1, 197–217. Duarte Silveira, N. 2005, ‘Sostenibilidad socioeconomica y
Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 07:56 10 February 2014

Amador, M. F., Gleissman, S. R., 1990, ‘An ecological ecologica de sistemas agroforestales de café (Coffea
approach to reducing external inputs through the use of arabica) en la microcuenca del Rı́o Sensemiles, Copán,
intercropping’, in: S. R. Gliessman (ed), Agroecology: Honduras’, MSc thesis, Tropical Agricultural Research and
Researching the Ecological Basis for Sustainable Agriculture, Higher Education Center (CATIE), Costa Rica.
Springer, New York, 146 –159. Duelli, P., Obrist, M. K., 2003, ‘Biodiversity indicators: the
Andreoli, M., Tellarini, V., 2000, ‘Farm sustainability evaluation: choice of values and measures’, Agriculture, Ecosystems
methodology and practice’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & and Environment 98, 87– 98.
Environment 77(1–2), 43 –52. ECLAC (Economic Comission for Latin America and the
Astier, M., 1996, ‘Hacia una Agricultura Ecológica en México: el Caribbean), 2009, The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural
problema de la transición para el productor campesino’, in: Development in the Americas: A Perspective on Latin America
J. Pérez-Moreno, R. Ferrera-Cerrato (eds), Nuevos and the Caribbean, ECLAC-IICA-FAO, Santiago, Chile.
Horizontes en Agricultura: Agroecologı́a y Desarrollo Francis, C. A., 1986, Multiple Cropping Systems, MacMillan,
Sustentable, Colegio de Postgraduados en Ciencias New York.
Agrı́colas, Mexico, 203– 223. Funes-Monzote, F., Lopez-Ridaura, S., Titonell, P., 2009,
Astier, M., Hollands, J., 2005, Sustentabilidad y Campesinado. ‘Diversity and efficiency: the elements of ecologically
Seis experiencias Agroecologicas en Latinoamerica, intensive agriculture’, LEISA Magazine on Low External Input
MundiPrensa-GIRA-ILEIA-ICCO, Mexico. and Sustainable Agriculture 25(1), 9–10.
Astier, M., Pérez Agis, E., Mota Garcı́a, F., Masera, O., Alatorre Galván-Miyoshi, Y., Masera, O., López-Ridaura, S., 2008, ‘Las
Frenk, C., 2000, ‘El diseño de sistemas sustentables de maı́z evaluaciones de sustentabilidad’, in: M. Astier, Y. Galván,
en la Región Purhépecha’, in: O. Masera, S. López-Ridaura O. R. Masera (eds), Evaluación de Sustentabilidad. Un
(eds), Sustentabilidad y Sistemas Campesinos. Cinco Enfoque Dinámico y Multidimensional, Mundiprensa-SEAE-
Experiencias de Evaluación en el México Rural, CIGA-CIEco-GIRA, Valencia, Spain, 41 –57.
MundiPrensa-GIRA-UNAM, Mexico, 271–324. Gameda, S., Dumanski, J., 1995, ‘Framework for the
Astier, M., Pérez, E., Ortiz, T., Mota, F., 2005, ‘Sustentabilidad evaluation of sustainable land management: a case study of
de sistemas campesinos de maı́z después de cuatro años: el two rain-fed cereal-livestock farming systems in the Black
segundo ciclo de evaluación MESMIS’, in: M. Astier, J. Chernozemic zone of Southern Alberta, Canada’, Canadian
Hollands (eds), Sustentabilidad y campesinado. Seis Journal of Soil Science 75(4), 429– 437.
experiencias agroecológicas en Latinoamérica, Gianella, E. T., Chávez, J. T. J., 2003, ‘Ocho estudios de caso’,
MundiPrensa-GIRA-ILEIA-ICCO, Mexico, 85–118. LEISA Revista de Agroecologia (edición especial) 19, 1.
Astier, M., Galván, Y., Masera, O. R., 2008, Evaluación de Gomero, O. L., Velázquez, A. H., 2005, ‘Evaluación de la
Sustentabilidad, Un enfoque dinámico y multidimensional, sustentabilidad del Sistema de Algodón Orgánico en la Zona
Mundiprensa-SEAE-CIGA-CIEco-GIRA, Valencia, Spain. de Trópico Húmedo del Perú San Martı́n, Tarapoto’, in: M.
Berkes, F., Folke, C., 2002, ‘Back to the future: ecosystem Astier, J. Hollands (eds), Sustentabilidad y Campesinado.
change, institutions and local knowledge’, in: L. H. Seis experiencias Agroecologicas en Latinoamerica,
Gunderson, C. S. Holling (eds), Panarchy: Understanding MundiPrensa-GIRA-ILEIA-ICCO, Mexico, 57 –83.
Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, Island Gomes de Almeida, S., Bianconi, F. G., 2005, ‘Sustentabilidad
Press, Washington, DC, 121–146. Económica de un Sistema Familiar en una Región Semiarida
Bluffstone, R., Boscolo, M., Molina, R., 2000, How Does de Brasil’, in: M. Astier, J. Hollands (eds), Sustentabilidad y
Community Forestry Affect Rural Households? A Labor Campesinado. Seis experiencias Agroecologicas en
Allocation Model of the Bolivian Andes [available at http:// Latinoamerica, MundiPrensa-GIRA-ILEIA-ICCO, Mexico,
dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00000796/00/ 121–156.
bluffstoner300901.pdf]. Guevara, F., Carranza, T., Puentes, R., Gonzalez, C., 2000, ‘La
Bosshard, A., 2000, ‘A methodology and terminology of sustentabilidad de sistemas Maiz-mucuna en el Sureste de
sustainability assessment and its perspectives for rural Mexico’, in: O. Masera, S. López-Ridaura (eds),
planning’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77, Sustentabilidad y Sistemas Campesinos. Cinco Experiencias
29 –41. de Evaluación en el México Rural,
Braband, D., Geier, U., Koepke, U., 2003, ‘Bio-resource MundiPrensa-GIRA-UNAM, Mexico, 207– 269.
evaluation within agri-environmental assessment tools in Hengsdijk, H., Guanghuo, W., Van den Berg, M., Jiangdi, W.,
different European countries’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Wolf, J., Changhe, L., Roetter, R. P., Van Keulen, H., 2007,
Environment 98, 423– 434. ‘Poverty and biodiversity trade-offs in rural development: a
Brookfield, H., 2001, Exploring Agrodiversity, Columbia case study for Pujiang county, China’, Agricultural Systems
University Press, New York. 94, 851– 861.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

 422 M. Astier et al.

IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development), 2005, Pretty, J. N., Noble, A. D., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R. E.,
Organic Agriculture and Poverty Reduction in Asia: China Penning de Vries, F. W. T., Morison, J. I. L., 2006,
and India Focus, IFAD, Rome. ‘Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in
Jackson, L. E., Pascual, U., Hodgkin, T., 2007, ‘Utilizing and developing countries’, Environmental Science and
conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes’, Technology 40(4), 1114– 1119.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 121, 196– 210. Rao, N. H., Rogers, P. P., 2006, ‘Assessment of agricultural
Lohr, L., Salomonsson, L., 2000, ‘Conversion subsidies for sustainability’, Current Science 91, 439–448.
organic production: results from Sweden and lessons for the Speelman, E. N., Astier, M., Galván-Miyoshi, Y., 2008,
United States’, Agricultural Economics 22, 133–146. ‘Sistematización y análisis de las experiencias de
López-Ridaura, S., Masera, O., Astier, M., 2002, ‘Evaluating evaluación con el marco MESMIS: Lecciones para el futuro’,
sustainability of complex socio-environmental systems, the in: M. Astier, Y. Galván, O. R. Masera (eds), Evaluación de
MESMIS framework’, Ecological Indicators 2, 135– 148. Sustentabilidad. Un Enfoque Dinámico y Multidimensional,
López-Ridaura, S., van Ittersum, M. K., Masera, O. R., Mundiprensa-SEAE-CIGA-CIEco-GIRA, Valencia, Spain,
Leffelaar, P. A., Astier, M., van Keulen, H., 2005, 25– 39.
‘Sustainability evaluation. Applying ecological principles and Speelman, E. N., Astier, M., López-Ridaura, S., Leffelaar, P. A.,
tools to natural resource management systems’, in: A. D. van Ittersum, M. K., 2006, ‘Trade-off analysis for
Maples (ed), Sustainable Development: New Research, sustainability evaluation: a case study for Purhepecha
Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 07:56 10 February 2014

NovaScience, New York, 139– 167. region, Mexico’, Outlook on Agriculture 35, 57– 64.
Mäder, P., Fliebbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., Niggli, Speelman, E. N., López-Ridaura, S., Aliana Colomer, N., Astier,
U., 2002, ‘Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming’, M., Masera, O. R., 2007, ‘Ten years of sustainability
Science 296, 1694– 1697. evaluation using the MESMIS framework: lessons learned
Martı́nez, C. O., 2005, ‘Evaluación de la sostenibilidad de un from its application in 28 Latin American case studies’,
modelo de sistema agrosilvopastoril alternativo y su International Journal of Sustainable Development and World
factibilidad de implementarse por productores del sur de Ecology 14, 345– 361.
Sinaloa’, MSc thesis, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Swift, M. J., Izac, A. M. N., van Noordwijk, M., 2004,
Texcoco, México. ‘Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural
Masera, O., López-Ridaura, S., 2000, Sustentabilidad y landscapes: are we asking the right question?’ Agriculture,
Sistemas Campesinos. Cino experiencias de evaluacion en el Ecosystems and Environment 104, 113–134.
México rural, MundiPrensa-GIRA-UNAM, Mexico. Tellarini, V., Caporalli, F., 2000, ‘An input/output methodology
Masera, O., Astier, M., López-Ridaura, S., 1999, to evaluate farms as sustainable agroecosystems: an
Sustentabilidad y manejo de Recursos Naturales. El marco application of indicators to farms in central Italy’, Agriculture,
de evaluación MESMIS, MundiPrensa-GIRA-UNAM, Mexico. Ecosystems & Environment 77(1– 2), 111–123.
Mayer, L., 2008, ‘Strengths and weaknesses of common Tengö, M., Belfrage, K., 2004, ‘Local management practices
sustainability indices for multidimensional systems’, for dealing with change and uncertainty: a cross-scale
Environment International 34, 277–291. comparison of cases in Sweden and Tanzania’, Ecology and
Morant, C. P., 2004, ‘The relative sustainability of organic, Society 9(3), 4 [available at www.ecologyandsociety.org/
biodynamic, integrated and conventional broad acre vol9/iss3/art4].
farming’, Master thesis, School of Earth and Environmental The Royal Society, 2009, ‘Reaping the benefits: Science and
Sciences, University of Adelaide, Australia. the sustainable intensification of global agriculture’, Royal
Moya, G., Caamal, X., Ku Ku, A., Chan Xool, A. B., Armendáriz, Society Policy document 11/09, London.
I., Flores, I., Moguel, J., Noh Poot, M., Rosales, M., Thomassen, M. A., de Boer, I. J. M., 2005, ‘Evaluation of
Domı́nguez, X. J., 2005, ‘La sustentabilidad que viene de indicators to assess the environmental impact of dairy
lejos: una evaluación multidisciplinaria e intercultural production systems’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and
campesina de los mayas en Xohuayan, Yucatán’, in: M. Environment 111(1–4), 185–199.
Astier, J. Hollands (eds), Sustentabilidad y Campesinado. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), 1993, Agenda
Seis experiencias Agroecologicas en Latinoamerica, 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development. The
MundiPrensa-GIRA-ILEIA-ICCO, Mexico, 161–199. United Nations Programme of Action from Rio.
Ocampo-Fletes, I., 2004, ‘Gestión del Agua y Sustentabilidad Van Cauwenbergh, N., Biala, K., Bielders, C., Brouckaert, V.,
de los sistemas de pequeño riego. El caso del canal San Franchois, L., Garcia Cidad, V., Hermy, M., Mathijs, E.,
Félix, Atlixco, Mexico’, PhD thesis, University of Córdoba, Muys, B., Reijnders, J., Sauvenier, X., Valckx, J.,
Spain. Vanclooster, M., Van der Veken, B., Wauters, E., Peeters, A.,
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 2007, ‘SAFE – A hierarchical framework for assessing the
Development), 2001, OECD Environmental Indicators. sustainability of agricultural systems’, Agriculture,
Towards Sustainable Development, OECD, Paris. Ecosystems and Environment 120(2– 4), 229–242.
Ostrom, E., 2009, ‘A general framework for analyzing Vandermeer, J., 1989, The Ecology of Intercropping,
sustainability of social-ecological systems’, Science 325, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
419– 422. Viglizzo, E. F., Roberto, Z. E., 1998, ‘On trade-offs in
Potts, T., 2006, ‘A framework for the analysis of sustainability low-input agroecosystems’, Agricultural Systems 56,
indicators systems in fisheries’, Ocean and Coastal 253–264.
Management 49, 259–280. Villa, M., C. I., 2002, ‘Primer ciclo de evaluación de
Pretty, J. N., 2003, ‘Social capital and the collective sustentabilidad del agroecosistema de Tenango del Valle,
management of resources’, Science 12, 1912– 1914. Estado de México’, MSc thesis, Universidad Nacional
Pretty, J. N., 2008, ‘Agricultural sustainability: concepts, Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico.
principles and evidence’, Philosophical Transactions of the Wackernagel, M., Rees, W., 1996, Our Ecological Footprint:
Royal Society B 363, 447– 465. Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, New Society
Pretty, J. N., Morison, J. I. L., Hine, R. E., 2003, ‘Reducing food Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC.
poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing Walker, B., Salt, D., 2006, Resilience Thinking: Sustaining
countries’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 95, Ecosystems and People in a Changing World, Island Press,
217– 234. Washington, Covelo, London.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY