Sustainability Assessment in Wine-Grape Growing in the New World: Economic, Environmental, and Social Indicators for Agricultural Businesses
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Stage I Summary: Sustainability Definition and Conceptual Framework
2.1. Sustainability Definition
2.2. Conceptual Framework: Triple Bottom Line
3. Indicators
3.1. Indicators: Viewpoints and Approaches
3.2. Drivers of Assessment and Indicator Choice: Past and Present
3.3. Some Examples of Current Sustainability Approaches: Agroecology and Carbon Footprint
3.4. The Complexity of Selecting “Good Indicators”
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Research Project: Sustainability Assessment in Wine-Grape Growing
Project Stage | Technique | Aims Purpose |
---|---|---|
1 | Adapted Focus Group Method of Enquiry-AFGME | Define sustainability; determine the importance of three categories (economic, environment, and social) by attributing weights for each out of 100%; and produce a sustainability concept map that mirrors the sustainability definition. |
2 | Adapted Nominal Group Technique-ANGT | Produce list of indicators; rank indicators within each category; produce an overall indicators list from all categories; document and compare the most relevant sustainability programs for viticulture worldwide. |
3 | Semi structured in-person or email interviews and observations | Understand the expected benefits and inhibiting factors from growers’ participation in sustainability programs (engagement). |
4.2. Purposive Sampling
4.3. The Hybrid Method
4.4. Data Analysis
Indicators | Items grouped |
---|---|
ECONOMIC | |
Vine health | Longevity of the vineyard (e.g., disease free, virus free, etc.); longevity of the vines; increasing lifespan of the vineyard; useful life of the vineyard; health and longevity of the vineyard. |
Yield | Yield, tons per hectare, tonnes per hectare, tons per acre, productivity, production per hectare, production: so, yield and production performance. |
Labour costs | Employees’ wages, labour costs and input cost: labour. |
ENVIRONMENT | |
Soil health | Soil health, maintaining nutrient status in the soil, improvement of soil health, monitor and optimise soil health, soil health— microbial activity, healthy soil, soil health capable to support the vineyard, soil health/vitality, presence of heavy metal in soil (not desirable), natural fertility of soil, soil microbiology, etc. |
Aesthetics | Aesthetics and amenity, maintaining the integrity of the property, landscape and topography, aesthetics of your vineyard. |
Biological controls | Importance of biological controls and presence of beneficial insects. |
Erosion | No erosion, decrease erosion, reducing erosion, erosion and no till. |
SOCIAL | |
Happy workers | Happiness of people, happy workers, happy employees, labour climate, satisfaction of the employees (through surveys on worker satisfaction). |
Happy neighbours | Good neighbouring, happy neighbours, number of incidents/complaints per year, good communication with neighbours, good neighbours relations, and reducing spray drifts to neighbours. |
Business viability | Financial return and viability of your business and financial sustainable employment on farm. |
5. Results and Discussion
Original indicators mentioned in all sessions | Merged indicators, mentioned in multiple sessions | Merged indicators, excluding the ones only mentioned in a single session | |
---|---|---|---|
Economic | 161 | 53 | 27 |
Environment | 171 | 34 | 26 |
Social | 175 | 36 | 23 |
Total | 507 | 123 | 76 |
5.1. Intersected Indicators for a Better Assessment
5.2. The Proposed Indicators
5.3. Proposed Economic Indicators
5.4. Proposed Environmental Indicators
5.5. Proposed Social Indicators
5.6. A Good Start for Systemic Assessment Using a Triple Bottom Line Approach
Rank | Sustainability Indicators | Number of participants | ANGT sessions | Participants’ Average | Importance Index | Adjusted Importance Index |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Soil health (ENVIRO) | 64 | 12 | 3.61 | 43.31 | 15.16 |
2 | Grapes fit for purpose (ECON) | 51 | 10 | 3.57 | 35.69 | 14.63 |
3 | Water use optimization (ENVIRO) | 61 | 11 | 3.37 | 37.06 | 12.97 |
4 | Economic yield (ECON) | 51 | 9 | 3.42 | 30.76 | 12.61 |
5 | Biodiversity (ENVIRO) | 67 | 11 | 3.16 | 34.75 | 12.16 |
6 | Off farm impacts from farming (including healthy waterways) (ENVIRO) | 51 | 9 | 3.48 | 31.32 | 10.96 |
7 | Chemical inputs optimization (ENVIRO) | 49 | 9 | 3.32 | 29.85 | 10.45 |
8 | Management costs (ECON) | 38 | 7 | 3.42 | 23.95 | 9.82 |
9 | Staff retention (SOCIAL) | 44 | 8 | 3.38 | 27.00 | 9.45 |
10 | Profitability (ECON) | 34 | 6 | 3.65 | 21.88 | 8.97 |
11 | Yield (ECON) | 36 | 7 | 3.10 | 21.68 | 8.89 |
12 | Pest and disease management (ENVIRO) | 42 | 8 | 3.14 | 25.14 | 8.80 |
13 | Operational efficiency (ECON) | 37 | 6 | 3.38 | 20.27 | 8.31 |
14 | Soft/Appropriate chemical use (ENVIRO) | 45 | 7 | 3.36 | 23.49 | 8.22 |
15 | Grape demand (ECON) | 23 | 5 | 3.85 | 19.24 | 7.89 |
16 | Carbon footprint (ENVIRO) | 26 | 6 | 3.10 | 18.58 | 6.50 |
17 | Vine health (ECON) | 27 | 5 | 3.15 | 15.74 | 6.45 |
18 | Return of investment (ECON) | 24 | 4 | 3.81 | 15.25 | 6.25 |
19 | Training (SOCIAL) | 37 | 8 | 3.19 | 25.51 | 6.12 |
20 | Erosion (ENVIRO) | 23 | 5 | 3.48 | 17.39 | 6.09 |
21 | Healthy work environment (SOCIAL) | 42 | 7 | 3.40 | 23.81 | 5.71 |
22 | Workers’ engagement (SOCIAL) | 44 | 7 | 3.39 | 23.70 | 5.69 |
23 | Community benefits (SOCIAL) | 44 | 9 | 2.63 | 23.63 | 5.67 |
24 | Soil organic carbon (ENVIRO) | 30 | 5 | 3.23 | 16.17 | 5.66 |
25 | Improving operational efficiency (ECON) | 25 | 5 | 2.68 | 13.40 | 5.49 |
26 | Beyond legal standards for workers (SOCIAL) | 42 | 7 | 3.20 | 22.42 | 5.38 |
27 | End price of wine (ECON) | 26 | 4 | 3.19 | 12.77 | 5.24 |
28 | Brand value (ECON) | 28 | 4 | 3.18 | 12.71 | 5.21 |
29 | Vine health (ENVIRO) | 15 | 4 | 3.49 | 13.96 | 4.88 |
30 | Happy neighbours (SOCIAL) | 35 | 6 | 3.35 | 20.11 | 4.83 |
31 | Operational/management continuous improvement (ENVIRO) | 19 | 4 | 3.42 | 13.68 | 4.79 |
32 | High fruit quality production (ECON) | 19 | 3 | 3.79 | 11.37 | 4.66 |
33 | Winery profitability (ECON) | 20 | 3 | 3.60 | 10.80 | 4.43 |
34 | Compliance with labour laws (SOCIAL) | 32 | 6 | 3.06 | 18.34 | 4.40 |
35 | Aesthetics (SOCIAL) | 30 | 6 | 3.00 | 18.00 | 4.32 |
36 | Happy workers (SOCIAL) | 32 | 5 | 3.59 | 17.97 | 4.31 |
37 | Labour costs (ECON) | 16 | 3 | 3.44 | 10.31 | 4.23 |
38 | Grape price (ECON) | 16 | 3 | 3.31 | 9.94 | 4.07 |
39 | Healthy work environment (ENVIRO) | 18 | 4 | 2.86 | 11.44 | 4.01 |
40 | Carbon footprint (ECON) | 28 | 5 | 1.93 | 9.64 | 3.95 |
41 | Inputs reduction (ECON) | 23 | 4 | 2.39 | 9.57 | 3.92 |
42 | Air quality (ENVIRO) | 16 | 3 | 3.69 | 11.06 | 3.87 |
43 | Recycling (ENVIRO) | 22 | 4 | 2.73 | 10.91 | 3.82 |
44 | Community health (ENVIRO) | 13 | 3 | 3.46 | 10.38 | 3.63 |
45 | Soil compaction (ENVIRO) | 19 | 3 | 3.42 | 10.26 | 3.59 |
46 | Land value (ECON) | 27 | 3 | 2.89 | 8.67 | 3.55 |
47 | Workers time off (injury/sick days) (SOCIAL) | 23 | 4 | 3.67 | 14.67 | 3.52 |
48 | Succession planning (ECON) | 20 | 3 | 2.85 | 8.55 | 3.51 |
49 | Wine (SOCIAL) | 24 | 4 | 3.54 | 14.17 | 3.40 |
50 | Fuel use (ENVIRO) | 17 | 3 | 3.18 | 9.53 | 3.34 |
51 | Workers' housing (SOCIAL) | 24 | 4 | 3.46 | 13.83 | 3.32 |
52 | Production consistency (ECON) | 11 | 2 | 4.00 | 8.00 | 3.28 |
53 | Education (SOCIAL) | 28 | 4 | 3.39 | 13.57 | 3.26 |
54 | Record-keeping (ENVIRO) | 18 | 3 | 2.89 | 8.67 | 3.03 |
55 | Community health (SOCIAL) | 31 | 5 | 2.42 | 12.10 | 2.90 |
56 | Protective equipment (SOCIAL) | 11 | 3 | 4.00 | 12.00 | 2.88 |
57 | Ability to benchmark performance (ECON) | 21 | 3 | 2.33 | 7.00 | 2.87 |
58 | Labour productivity (ECON) | 12 | 2 | 3.50 | 7.00 | 2.87 |
59 | Contracts (ECON) | 15 | 2 | 3.27 | 6.53 | 2.68 |
60 | Management continuous assessment (ECON) | 9 | 2 | 3.22 | 6.44 | 2.64 |
61 | Vineyard design (ENVIRO) | 16 | 2 | 3.63 | 7.25 | 2.54 |
62 | Ratio input:output in farm (as close as possible system) (ENVIRO) | 16 | 3 | 2.38 | 7.13 | 2.49 |
63 | Biological controls (ENVIRO) | 12 | 2 | 3.50 | 7.00 | 2.45 |
64 | Aesthetics (ENVIRO) | 10 | 3 | 2.30 | 6.90 | 2.42 |
65 | Certifications (SOCIAL) | 18 | 3 | 3.19 | 9.58 | 2.30 |
66 | Staff retention (ECON) | 14 | 2 | 2.79 | 5.57 | 2.28 |
67 | Certifications (ENVIRO) | 13 | 2 | 3.21 | 6.41 | 2.24 |
68 | Pesticide reduction (ENVIRO) | 7 | 2 | 3.14 | 6.29 | 2.20 |
69 | Capital replacement cost (ECON) | 8 | 2 | 2.63 | 5.25 | 2.15 |
70 | Use of (appropriate) cover crops (ENVIRO) | 8 | 2 | 3.00 | 6.00 | 2.10 |
71 | Workers productivity (SOCIAL) | 14 | 3 | 2.64 | 7.93 | 1.90 |
72 | Social events for workers (SOCIAL) | 16 | 3 | 2.63 | 7.88 | 1.89 |
73 | Business viability (SOCIAL) | 13 | 2 | 3.85 | 7.69 | 1.85 |
74 | Workers' ownership (SOCIAL) | 15 | 2 | 3.13 | 6.27 | 1.50 |
75 | Labour costs (SOCIAL) | 11 | 2 | 2.73 | 5.45 | 1.31 |
76 | Tourism (SOCIAL) | 14 | 2 | 2.71 | 5.43 | 1.30 |
5.7. Recurrent Indicators
Recurrent indicator | Economic | Environment | Social |
---|---|---|---|
Adjusted Importance Index (AII) | |||
Aesthetics | 2.42 | 4.32 | |
Carbon footprint | 3.95 | 6.50 | |
Certifications | 2.24 | 2.30 | |
Community health | 3.63 | 2.90 | |
Healthy work environment | 4.01 | 5.71 | |
Labour costs | 4.23 | 1.31 | |
Staff retention | 2.28 | 9.45 |
6. Limitations
7. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Keeble, B.R. The brundtland commission: Environment and development to the year 2000. Med. War 1987, 3, 207–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Milne, M.J.; Grubnic, S. Climate change accounting research: Keeping it interesting and different. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2011, 24, 948–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pannell, D.J.; Glenn, N.A. A framework for the economic evaluation and selection of sustainability indicators in agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 33, 135–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bélanger, V.; Vanasse, A.; Parent, D.; Allard, G.; Pellerin, D. Development of agri-environmental indicators to assess dairy farm sustainability in Quebec, Eastern Canada. Ecol. Indicat. 2012, 23, 421–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bockstaller, C.; Guichard, L.; Makowski, D.; Aveline, A.; Girardin, P.; Plantureux, S. Agri-environmental indicators to assess cropping and farming systems: A review. In Sustainable Agriculture; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 725–738. [Google Scholar]
- Rigby, D.; Woodhouse, P.; Young, T.; Burton, M. Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 39, 463–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binder, C.R.; Feola, G. Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: A review of indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. In Methods and Procedures for Building Sustainable Farming Systems; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 33–46. [Google Scholar]
- Gray, R. Accounting and environmentalism: An exploration of the challenge of gently accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability. Account. Org. Soc. 1992, 17, 399–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bastianoni, S.; Marchettini, N.; Panzieri, M.; Tiezzi, E. Sustainability assessment of a farm in the chianti area (Italy). JCLP 2001, 9, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Werf, H.M.G.; Petit, J. Evaluation of the environmental impact of agriculture at the farm level: A comparison and analysis of 12 indicator-based methods. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002, 93, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, R. Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Account. Org. Soc. 2010, 35, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santiago-Brown, I.; Jerram, C.; Metcalfe, A.; Collins, C. What does sustainability mean? Knowledge gleaned from applying mixed methods research to wine grape growing. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santiago-Brown, I.; Metcalfe, A.; Jerram, C.; Collins, C. Transnational comparison of sustainability assessment programs for viticulture and a case-study on programs’ engagement processes. Sustainability 2014, 6, 2031–2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burritt, R.L.; Schaltegger, S. Sustainability accounting and reporting: Fad or trend? Account. Audit. Account. J. 2010, 23, 829–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parmenter, D. Key Performance Indicators (KPI): Developing, Implementing, and Using Winning Kpis; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Oliver, D.P.; Bramley, R.G.V.; Riches, D.; Porter, I.; Edwards, J. Review: Soil physical and chemical properties as indicators of soil quality in australian viticulture. Aust. J. Grape Wine R. 2013, 19, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binder, C.R.; Feola, G.; Steinberger, J.K. Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2010, 30, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Limón, J.A.; Sanchez-Fernandez, G. Empirical evaluation of agricultural sustainability using composite indicators. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1062–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yli-Viikari, A. Confusing messages of sustainability indicators. Local Environ. 2009, 14, 891–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bebbington, J.; Brown, J.; Frame, B. Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 61, 224–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraser, M. “Fleshing out” an engagement with a social accounting technology. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2012, 25, 508–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Liempd, D.; Busch, J. Biodiversity reporting in denmark. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rinne, J.; Lyytimäki, J.; Kautto, P. From sustainability to well-being: Lessons learned from the use of sustainable development indicators at national and EU level. Ecol. Indicat. 2013, 35, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbona, E.A.; Sarandón, S.J.; Marasas, M.E.; Astier, M. Ecological sustainability evaluation of traditional management in different vineyard systems in berisso, argentina. Agri. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 119, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pacini, G.C.; Lazzerini, G.; Vazzana, C. Aesis: A support tool for the evaluation of sustainability of agroecosystems. Example of Applications to Organic and Integrated Farming Systems in Tuscany, Italy. Ital. J. Agron. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.S.; Fraser, E.D.G.; Dougill, A.J. An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 59, 406–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saltiel, J.; Bauder, J.W.; Palakovich, S. Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices: Diffusion, farm structure, and profitability. Rural Sociol. 1994, 59, 333–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brouwer, F.; Crabtree, B. Environmental Indicators and Agricultural Policy; CABI: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Commission for Sustainable Development. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies; United Nations Publication: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Koohafkan, P.; Altieri, M.A.; Gimenez, E.H. Green agriculture: Foundations for biodiverse, resilient and productive agricultural systems. Int. J. Agr. Sustain. 2012, 10, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darnhofer, I.; Fairweather, J.; Moller, H. Assessing a farm's sustainability: Insights from resilience thinking. Int. J. Agr. Sustain. 2010, 8, 186–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Wirén-Lehr, S. Sustainability in agriculture—an evaluation of principal goal-oriented concepts to close the gap between theory and practice. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2001, 84, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Espinosa, A.; Harnden, R.; Walker, J. A complexity approach to sustainability-stafford beer revisited. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2008, 187, 636–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rametsteiner, E.; Pülzl, H.; Alkan-Olsson, J.; Frederiksen, P. Sustainability indicator development—Science or political negotiation? Ecol. Indicat. 2011, 11, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sunding, D.; Zilberman, D. The agricultural innovation process: Research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector. Handbook Agr. Econ. 2001, 1, 207–261. [Google Scholar]
- Böhringer, C.; Löschel, A. Computable general equilibrium models for sustainability impact assessment: Status quo and prospects. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santana-Medina, N.; Franco-Maass, S.; Sánchez-Vera, E.; Imbernon, J.; Nava-Bernal, G. Participatory generation of sustainability indicators in a natural protected area of mexico. Ecol. Indicat. 2013, 25, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halog, A.; Manik, Y. Advancing integrated systems modelling framework for life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2011, 3, 469–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, R.B. Sustainability assessment: Basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2006, 24, 170–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I. Agroecology and The Search for A Truly Sustainable Agriculture, 1st ed.; United Nations: Mexico City, Mexico, 2005; pp. 1–290. [Google Scholar]
- Wojtkowski, P.A. Introduction to Agroecology: Principles and Practices; Food Products Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Gliessman, S.R. Field and Laboratory Investigations in Agroecology; Taylor & Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Gliessman, S.R. Agroecology. Available online: http://www.agroecology.org (accessed on 25 May 2014).
- Pretty, J.; Sutherland, W.J.; Ashby, J.; Auburn, J.; Baulcombe, D.; Bell, M.; Bentley, J.; Bickersteth, S.; Brown, K.; Burke, J.; et al. The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture. Int. J. Agri. Sustain. 2010, 8, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, K.A.; Green, A.; Warner, D.J.; Tzilivakis, J. Carbon accounting tools: Are they fit for purpose in the context of arable cropping? Int. J. Agri. Sustain. 2012, 11, 159–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bosco, S.; Bene, C.; Galli, M.; Remorini, D.; Massai, R.; Bonari, E. Soil organic matter accounting in the carbon footprint analysis of the wine chain. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 973–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christ, K.L.; Burritt, R.L. Critical environmental concerns in wine production: An integrative review. JCLP 2013, 53, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doody, D.G.; Kearney, P.; Barry, J.; Moles, R.; O’Regan, B. Evaluation of the q-method as a method of public participation in the selection of sustainable development indicators. Ecol. Indicat. 2009, 9, 1129–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, Y.; Davidson, B.; Chen, D.; White, R. Balancing the economic, social and environmental dimensions of agro-ecosystems: An integrated modeling approach. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 131, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bond, A.; Morrison-Saunders, A.; Pope, J. Sustainability assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2012, 30, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lancker, E.; Nijkamp, P. A policy scenario analysis of sustainable agricultural development options: A case study for nepal. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2000, 18, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hambrick, D.C.; Mason, P.A. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1984, 9, 193–206. [Google Scholar]
- Teddlie, C.; Yu, F. Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. J. mixed methods res. 2007, 1, 77–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Ruyter, K. Focus versus nominal group interviews: A comparative analysis. Market Intell. Plann. 1996, 14, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fox, W.M. The improved nominal group technique (INGT). J. Manag. Dev. 1989, 8, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dobbie, A.; Rhodes, M.; Tysinger, J.W.; Freeman, J. Using a modified nominal group technique as a curriculum evaluation tool. Fam. Med. 2004, 36, 402–406. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Delbecq, A.L.; Van de Ven, A.H. A group process model for problem identification and program planning. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 1971, 7, 466–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallagher, M.; Hares, T.; Spencer, J.; Bradshaw, C.; Webb, I. The nominal group technique: A research tool for general practice? Fam. Pract. 1993, 10, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pastrana, T.; Radbruch, L.; Nauck, F.; Höver, G.; Fegg, M.; Pestinger, M.; Roß, J.; Krumm, N.; Ostgathe, C. Outcome indicators in palliative care—How to assess quality and success. Focus group and nominal group technique in germany. Support. care canc. 2010, 18, 859–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Duggan, E.W.; Thachenkary, C.S. Integrating nominal group technique and joint application development for improved systems requirements determination. Inform. Manag. 2004, 41, 399–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, S.C. Using the nominal group technique to select the most appropriate topics for postgraduate research students’ seminars. JUTLP 2004, 1, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Onwuegbuzie, A.J.; Dickinson, W.B.; Leech, N.L.; Zoran, A.G. Toward more rigor in focus group research: A new framework for collecting and analyzing focus group data. Int. J. Qual. Meth. 2009, 8, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
- Westhues, A.; Ochocka, J.; Jacobson, N.; Simich, L.; Maiter, S.; Janzen, R.; Fleras, A. Developing theory from complexity: Reflections on a collaborative mixed method participatory action research study. Qual. Health Res. 2008, 18, 701–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Draucker, C.B.; Martsolf, D.S.; Ross, R.; Rusk, T.B. Theoretical sampling and category development in grounded theory. Qual. Health Res. 2007, 17, 1137–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Noss, R.F. Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: A suggested framework and indicators. Forest Ecol. Manag. 1999, 115, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bridgman, C. Biodiversity and the South African Wine Sector: A Successful Blend? Stellenbosch University: Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Flores, C.C.; Sarandón, S.J. Racionalidad economica versus sustentabilidad ecologica? El ejemplo del costo oculto de la perdida de fertilidad del suelo durante el proceso de agriculturizacion en la region pampeana Argentina. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomia 2002, 105, 52–67. [Google Scholar]
- Altieri, M.A. Agroecological foundations of alternative agriculture in California. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 1992, 39, 23–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benini, L.; Bandini, V.; Marazza, D.; Contin, A. Assessment of land use changes through an indicator-based approach: A case study from the lamone river basin in northern Italy. Ecol. Indicat. 2010, 10, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Astier, M.; Speelman, E.N.; López-Ridaura, S.; Masera, O.R.; Gonzalez-Esquivel, C.E. Sustainability indicators, alternative strategies and trade-offs in peasant agroecosystems: Analysing 15 case studies from Latin America. Int. J. Agri. Sustain. 2011, 9, 409–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paoletti, M.G. Using bioindicators based on biodiversity to assess landscape sustainability. Agr. Ecosys. Environ. 1999, 74, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoffman, G.J.; Howell, T.A.; Solomon, K.H. Management of Farm Irrigation; The American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE): St. Joseph, MI, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Friel, S.; Dangour, A.D.; Garnett, T.; Lock, K.; Chalabi, Z.; Roberts, I.; Butler, A.; Butler, C.D.; Waage, J.; McMichael, A.J.; et al. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: Food and agriculture. Lancet. 2009, 374, 2016–2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, S.; Pearce, G. Climate change performance measurement, control and accountability in English local authority areas. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2011, 24, 1097–1118. [Google Scholar]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Santiago-Brown, I.; Metcalfe, A.; Jerram, C.; Collins, C. Sustainability Assessment in Wine-Grape Growing in the New World: Economic, Environmental, and Social Indicators for Agricultural Businesses. Sustainability 2015, 7, 8178-8204. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078178
Santiago-Brown I, Metcalfe A, Jerram C, Collins C. Sustainability Assessment in Wine-Grape Growing in the New World: Economic, Environmental, and Social Indicators for Agricultural Businesses. Sustainability. 2015; 7(7):8178-8204. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078178
Chicago/Turabian StyleSantiago-Brown, Irina, Andrew Metcalfe, Cate Jerram, and Cassandra Collins. 2015. "Sustainability Assessment in Wine-Grape Growing in the New World: Economic, Environmental, and Social Indicators for Agricultural Businesses" Sustainability 7, no. 7: 8178-8204. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078178