A Sustainable Development-Driven Framework: Aligning Agricultural Environmental Impact Assessment with the 2030 Agenda.
Uložené v:
| Názov: | A Sustainable Development-Driven Framework: Aligning Agricultural Environmental Impact Assessment with the 2030 Agenda. |
|---|---|
| Autori: | Viriato V; Department of Crop Science, Division of Horticulture, School of Agricultural Sciences, São Paulo State University, Campus Botucatu, Av. Universitária, 3780, Altos do Paraíso, Botucatu, SP, Brazil. viviany.viriato@unesp.br.; Soil, Water and Ecosystem Sciences Department, Global Food System Institute, University of Florida/IFAS, Gainesville, FL, USA. viviany.viriato@unesp.br., Bonfim FPG; Department of Crop Science, Division of Horticulture, School of Agricultural Sciences, São Paulo State University, Campus Botucatu, Av. Universitária, 3780, Altos do Paraíso, Botucatu, SP, Brazil. filipe.giardini@unesp.br., Nunes MR; Soil, Water and Ecosystem Sciences Department, Global Food System Institute, University of Florida/IFAS, Gainesville, FL, USA. |
| Zdroj: | Environmental management [Environ Manage] 2025 Nov 26; Vol. 76 (1), pp. 15. Date of Electronic Publication: 2025 Nov 26. |
| Spôsob vydávania: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | English |
| Informácie o časopise: | Publisher: Springer Verlag Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 7703893 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1432-1009 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 0364152X NLM ISO Abbreviation: Environ Manage Subsets: MEDLINE |
| Imprint Name(s): | Publication: New York Ny : Springer Verlag Original Publication: New York, Springer-Verlag. |
| Výrazy zo slovníka MeSH: | Sustainable Development* , Agriculture*/methods , Conservation of Natural Resources*/methods , Environment*, United Nations |
| Abstrakt: | Competing Interests: Compliance with ethical standards. Conflict of interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Impacts of agriculture are commonly assessed using farm-level tools, especially when the primary objective is to provide environmental management advice on technology adoption and production practices. Among these tools, Ambitec-Agro, developed in 2003 based on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework, has been widely applied to evaluate the socioenvironmental performance of agricultural technologies in a cost-effective and efficient manner. In light of new international governance commitments related to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this manuscript presents the updated version of Ambitec-Agro and its alignment with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development focused on crop production. A qualitative, descriptive, and exploratory methodology was adopted, including the selection of relevant SDGs and the revision of the tool's indicators through document analysis, expert consultation, and literature review. The original tool comprises 2 dimensions, 7 aspects, 27 criteria, and 148 indicators. The updated version maintains the original structure and core principles but includes 25 criteria and 139 indicators. A total of 66 indicators were revised: 18 were removed, 14 added, 2 reallocated across criteria, 22 modified, and 10 merged into 5. These revisions enhance the tool's relevance, coherence, and applicability for evaluating agricultural technologies in the context of contemporary sustainability priorities. (© 2025. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.) |
| References: | Avila AFD, Rodrigues GS, Vedovoto GL et al. (2015) Embrapa experience on the impact assessment of agricultural R&D: 15 years using a multidimensional approach. In ImpAR Conference 2015, Paris. Impacts of agricultural research: towards an approach of societal values: [proceedings…]. Paris: INRA, 2015. 25 p. https://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1036444 (access 07/2025). Bandari R, Moallemi EA, Lester RE et al. (2022) Prioritising Sustainable Development Goals, characterising interactions, and identifying solutions for local sustainability. Environ Sci Policy 127:325–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.09.016 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.09.016) Chunga J, da Silva LM, Soares FB (2025) Socio-economic and environmental effects of poultry production in Maputo Region, Mozambique. Int J Agric Res Env Sci 6(1):1–8. Cidón CF, Schreiber D, Figueiró PS (2024) Bioeconomics applied to organic agriculture enhance social and environmental impact of Brazilian properties. Environ Dev Sustain 26:26085–26113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03718-8 . (PMID: 10.1007/s10668-023-03718-8) Demattê Filho LC, de Carvalho ÍCS, Mendes CMI et al. (2023) Assessing smallholder farmers’ perception of value creation and appropriation in sustainable production. Int J Environ Sustain Dev 22(2):226–253. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESD.2022.10052369 . (PMID: 10.1504/IJESD.2022.10052369) de Oliveira ER, Muniz EB, Soares JPG et al. (2022) Ecological and socio-environmental impacts of conversion to organic dairy farming. Org Agr 12:495–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-022-00404-3 . (PMID: 10.1007/s13165-022-00404-3) FAO 2023. Agricultural production statistics 2000–2022. FAOSTAT Analytical Briefs, No. 79. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc9205en. Fusco G, Campobasso F, Laureti L et al. (2023) The environmental impact of agriculture: An instrument to support public policy. Ecol Indic 147: 109961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.109961 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.109961) Gil AC (2008) Métodos e Técnicas de Pesquisa Social. https://ayanrafael.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/gil-a-c-mc3a9todos-e-tc3a9cnicas-de-pesquisa-social.pdf. Girardin P, Bockstaller C, van der Werf HMG (1999) Indicators: tools to evaluate the environmental impacts of farming systems. J Sustain Agriculture 13(4):5–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v13n04_03 . (PMID: 10.1300/J064v13n04_03) Hickmann T, Biermann F, Spinazzola M et al. (2022) Success factors of global goal-setting for sustainable development: Learning from the millennium development goals. Sustain Dev 31(3):1214–1225. (PMID: 10.1002/sd.2461) Kørnøv L, Lyhne I, Davila JG (2020) Linking the UN SDGs and environmental assessment: Towards a conceptual framework. Environ Impact Assess Rev 85: 106463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106463 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106463) Lal R, Bouma J, Brevik E et al. (2021) Soils and sustainable development goals of the United Nations: An International Union of Soil Sciences perspective. Geoderma Regional 25: e00398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2021.e00398 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.geodrs.2021.e00398) Lewandowski I, Härdtlein M, Kaltschmitt M (1999) Sustainable Crop Production: Definition and Methodological Approach for Assessing and Implementing Sustainability. Crop Science 39(1). https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1999.0011183X003900010029x. Ma D, Yin L, Ju W et al. (2021) Meta-analysis of green manure effects on soil properties and crop yield in northern China. Field Crops Res 266: 108146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108146 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108146) Navarro-Niño DA, Villamil-Carvajal JE, Polo-Murcia SM (2024) Stakeholder Insights: A Socio-Agronomic Study on VarietalInnovation Adoption, Preferences, and Sustainability in the Arracacha Crop (Arracacia xanthorrhiza B. Agronomy 14(9):1981. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14091981. Nilsson M, Griggs D, Visbeck M (2016) Policy: Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534:320–322. https://doi.org/10.1038/534320a . (PMID: 10.1038/534320a) Omisore AG (2018) Attaining Sustainable Development Goals in sub-Saharan Africa; The need to address environmental challenges. Environ Dev 25:138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2017.09.002 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.envdev.2017.09.002) Payraudeau S, van der Werf HMG (2005) Environmental impact assessment for a farming region: a review of methods. Agriculture, Ecosyst Environ 107(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2004.12.012 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.agee.2004.12.012) Pereira LS (2017) Water, Agriculture and Food: Challenges and Issues. Water Resour Manag 31:2985–2999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1664-z . (PMID: 10.1007/s11269-017-1664-z) Porto BHC, Soares JPG, Rodrigues GS et al. (2021) Socioenvironmental impacts of biogas production in a cooperative agroenergy condominium. Biomass—Bioenergy 151:106158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106158 ISSN 0961-9534. (PMID: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106158) Reganold J, Wachter J (2016) Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat Plants 2: 15221. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.221 . (PMID: 10.1038/nplants.2015.221) Rockström J, Donges JF, Fetzer I et al. (2024) Planetary Boundaries guide humanity’s future on Earth. Nat Rev Earth Environ 5:773–788. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-024-00597-z . (PMID: 10.1038/s43017-024-00597-z) Rockström J, Williams J, Daily G et al. (2017) Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio 46:4–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0793-6 . (PMID: 10.1007/s13280-016-0793-6) Rodrigues GS, Campanhola C, Kitamura PC (2003) An environmental impact assessment system for agricultural R&D. Environ Impact Assess Rev 23(2):219–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00097-5 . (PMID: 10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00097-5) Rodrigues GS, Campanhola C, Kitamura PC (2003) Avaliação de impacto ambiental da inovação tecnológica agropecuária: ambitec-agro/ Jaguariúna: Embrapa Meio Ambiente, 2003. 95p.– (Embrapa Meio Ambiente. Documentos, 34). Rodrigues GS, de AlmeidaBuschinelli CC, Avila AFD (2010) An environmental impact assessment system for agricultural research and development II: institutional learning experience at Embrapa. J Technol Manag Innov 5(4):38–56. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242010000400004 . (PMID: 10.4067/S0718-27242010000400004) Saleem A, Anwa S, Nawaz T et al. (2024) Securing a sustainable future: the climate change threat to agriculture, food security, and sustainable development goals. J.Umm Al-Qura Univ. Appll. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43994-024-00177-3. Shahmohamadloo RS, Febria CM, Fraser EDG, Sibley PK (2022) The sustainable agriculture imperative: A perspective on the need for an agrosystem approach to meet the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. Integr Environ Assess Manag 18(5):1199–1205. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4558 . (PMID: 10.1002/ieam.4558) Sumberg J, Giller KE (2022) What is ‘conventional’ agriculture?. Glob Food Security 32: 100617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100617 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100617) United Nations (2001) Road map towards the Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration: Report of the Secretary-General. A/56/326. United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda . Accessed on September 24, 2024. Viriato V, Rodrigues GS, Nunes MR, Adege AB, Bonfim FPG (2025) On‐farm observations of socioenvironmental impacts of Humulus lupulus L. cultivation in Brazil. Agronomy Journal 117(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.70175. |
| Grant Information: | 2023/12485-0 Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo |
| Contributed Indexing: | Keywords: Ambitec-Agro. Socioenvironmental impact. Agriculture. Sustainable Development Goals |
| Entry Date(s): | Date Created: 20251126 Date Completed: 20251126 Latest Revision: 20251126 |
| Update Code: | 20251126 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s00267-025-02318-8 |
| PMID: | 41296051 |
| Databáza: | MEDLINE |
Full Text Finder 
Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science | Abstrakt: | Competing Interests: Compliance with ethical standards. Conflict of interests: The authors declare no competing interests.<br />Impacts of agriculture are commonly assessed using farm-level tools, especially when the primary objective is to provide environmental management advice on technology adoption and production practices. Among these tools, Ambitec-Agro, developed in 2003 based on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework, has been widely applied to evaluate the socioenvironmental performance of agricultural technologies in a cost-effective and efficient manner. In light of new international governance commitments related to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this manuscript presents the updated version of Ambitec-Agro and its alignment with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development focused on crop production. A qualitative, descriptive, and exploratory methodology was adopted, including the selection of relevant SDGs and the revision of the tool's indicators through document analysis, expert consultation, and literature review. The original tool comprises 2 dimensions, 7 aspects, 27 criteria, and 148 indicators. The updated version maintains the original structure and core principles but includes 25 criteria and 139 indicators. A total of 66 indicators were revised: 18 were removed, 14 added, 2 reallocated across criteria, 22 modified, and 10 merged into 5. These revisions enhance the tool's relevance, coherence, and applicability for evaluating agricultural technologies in the context of contemporary sustainability priorities.<br /> (© 2025. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.) |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1432-1009 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s00267-025-02318-8 |