Nature and landscape production potentials of organic types of agriculture: a check of evaluation...

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 (2000) 53–64

Nature and landscape production potentials of organic types ofagriculture: a check of evaluation criteria and parameters in two Tuscan

farm-landscapes

Roberto Rossia,∗, Dionisio Notab

a Regione Toscana, Department of Land and Environmental Policy, Via di Novoli 26 -I-50127 Florence, Italyb Regione Toscana, Department of Economic Development, Via di Novoli 26 -I-50127 Florence, Italy

Accepted 19 July 1999

Abstract

Criteria and parameters for the evaluation of sound rural landscapes presented in the list worked out in the EU-concertedaction ‘The nature and landscape production potentials of sustainable/organic types of agriculture’ (third version, November1995) are checked in two Tuscan organic farms. The first farm is located in the landscape system of the Coastal Plains inthe Province of Grosseto, southern Tuscany. The second one is located in the landscape system of the Pliocene Hills in theProvince of Florence, central Tuscany. Referring to the ‘Checklist for sustainable landscape management’ as presented byStobbelaar and Van Mansvelt (1994), some comments are given on the criteria and parameters proposed and on the methodused for computing values in the evaluation (see Tellarini and Caporali, 2000). The evaluation that results confirms that organicfarms in both areas add a considerable number of values to the surrounding landscape, ranging from a clean environment,a diverse agro-ecosystem, multiple social and economic functions and a coherently diversified landscape. ©2000 ElsevierScience B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Evaluation; Landscape; Landscape development; Organic farm; Tuscany

1. Introduction

In this paper, criteria and parameters for the eval-uation of sustainable rural landscapes, as worked outin the EU-concerted action ‘The nature and landscapeproduction potentials of sustainable/organic types ofagriculture’ (Stobbelaar and Van Mansvelt, 1994;Van Mansvelt and Stobbelaar, 1997), are checkedon their feasibility in an assessment of two Tuscanfarm-landscapes.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-055-438-3699;fax:+39-055-438-3898.

The mentioned set of criteria and parameters forsustainable landscape management has been drawn upas a tool for many purposes. For example, it can beused as a framework for farm design, for farm develop-ment and management, and also as a checklist for eval-uating the sustainability of farms and their potential toproduce nature and landscape values as demanded bysociety (see Van Mansvelt and Van der Lubbe, 1998).

In the exercise reported on here, the practical appli-cability of the list of criteria and parameters, resultingfrom the work carried out in the first two years of theconcerted action, is discussed and an evaluation of thefarm-landscapes is done, using a simple criterium forcomputing values in the evaluation.

0167-8809/00/$ – see front matter ©2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.PII: S0167-8809(99)00092-4

54 R. Rossi, D. Nota / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 (2000) 53–64

The tables of criteria and parameters used for theexercise (see Tables 1–6) draw upon the third ver-sion of the list of parameters (November 1995), re-sulting from meetings in Denmark and Spain in thesummer of 1995. The Tables 3–6. (economy, soci-ology [g-type disciplines], psychology and physiog-nomy/cultural geography [a-type disciplines]) havebeen used without any change; whereas some varia-tions are proposed for the Tables 1 and 2 (environmentand ecology, theb-type disciplines).

The assessment of the farm-landscape values, asreported on here, has been carried out by a ‘reduced’team of twob scientists: a physical geographer andan agronomist. No measurements have been taken forany of the criteria and parameters, which have beenconsidered as points of reference in a rapid evaluationby experts. In Tables 1 to 6 some notes refer to remarksregarding the parameters listed in Section 3, and valuesare assigned to parameters and criteria as explained inSection 4.

2. Schematic description of the farm-landscapes

For the evaluation (see Tables 1 to 7), two organicfarms, which were already described in a former pa-per presented in the second plenary meeting of theconcerted action (Rossi et al., 1997), have been con-sidered. The landscapes of the organic farms are com-pared to the landscapes of their non-organically man-aged surroundings; not to specific non-organic farms.

Here only schematic descriptions of the La Selvafarm and Poggio Antico farm are given. In Rossiet al., 1997 they are presented in more detail.

2.1. La Selva farm

La Selva farm is an organic farm located in the land-scape system of the Coastal Plains, in the Provinceof Grosseto, in southern Tuscany (Fig. 1). The land-scape subsystem where the farm is located is formedby recent and terraced alluvial deposits and old eo-lian dune deposits. The area is subject to moderatephenomena of soil and higher water-table salinizationhazard partly due to over-exploitation of deep groundwater for irrigating.

La Selva farm is a 100% biological farm (Natur-land) with a high level of capital input, which has been

active for 12 years. The total surface is 95 ha; the uti-lized agricultural surface is 90 ha.

The land use of La Selva farm consists of a rota-tion of fodder crops (40–42 ha), cereals (20–21 ha),vegetables (rotating summer and winter vegetablesand medicinal plants: 20–21 ha); vineyards, orchardsand olive groves (totally 8 ha); woodland (coppice,3.5 ha); unproductive land (buildings, farm yards,roads, hedgerows, ponds, etc., 1.5 ha). Hedgerows aresufficiently present, specially as windbreaks. Cowsand sheep are specifically kept for the production ofmanure. In the farm there are artesian wells, withproblems of salinization of ground water; 25–30 haare irrigated each year (in rotation) with drip irrigationand low and high intensity sprinkler irrigation.

For the fertilization there is the use of manure andgreen manure; there is also the complete re-utilizationof by-products by means of pressing all plant remainsfor the production of manure.

There is a high level of mechanization and minimumtillage is adopted without turning the clods.

In the surroundings, differently from La Selva farm,there is mainly a monoculture of annual crops, virtu-ally without any woods and hedgerows and no live-stock is raised. Besides, in the area, mechanizationand the use of chemical fertilization is high and soilconservation practices are almost absent.

2.2. Poggio Antico farm

Poggio Antico farm is an organic farm located in thelandscape system of the Pliocene Hills, in the Provinceof Florence, in central Tuscany (Fig. 1).

The landscape subsystem where the farm is locatedis mainly formed by hills where Pliocene sands coverPliocene clays. The area is characterized by a certaindegree of erosion hazard and by off-site phenomena ofsiltation of canals and water courses, and of floodings.

The landscape of Poggio Antico farm and its sur-roundings are characterized by settlements on crests,dominance of tree crops on crests and higher partsof slopes, coppice woodland and shrubland mainly onslopes, lower part of slopes and valley-bottoms mainlycovered with herbaceous and fodder crops, streamcorridors in valley-bottoms. In the surrounding land-scapes wider valley-bottoms without stream-corridorsare also present.

R. Rossi, D. Nota / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 (2000) 53–64 55

Table 1Tentative evaluation of farm-landscape performance of two organic farms as compared to their non-organically managed surroundingsa

Criteria and parametersb La Selva La Selva Poggio P. Antico(1. Environment) farm surroundings Antico farm surroundings

landscapec landscapec landscapec landscapec

Clean environment: (+) (−) (+) (−?)(Fertile) soil conservations (++) (− −) (++) (− −?)Manure quality:c/n ratio ++? − −? ++? − −?Soil erosion: (1) (++) (−) (+) (− −)Actual erosion traces on the farm (rills and gullies, ++ − + − −soil deposition in slower parts of fields)Silting up of rivers and canals (on-site and off-site) + − − + − −Floodings (off-site) ± − ± −Other types of soil degradation: (2) (+) (−) (+) (±?)Loss of structure of topsoil (increase of bulk density; crusts formation) ++ −? + ±?Soil salinity (soil/water conductivity) ±? −?

(Clean) water conservation (3) (±?) (−?) (+?) (±?)Ground water quality (4) ±? −? +? +?Ground water× mg n/l ? ? ? ?Ground water salinity (conductivity; s.a.r. Sodium adsorbtion ratio) (5)−? −?Surface water quality (4) ± −? +? −?Nitrate levels in surface water (6) ? ? ? ?Phosphate levels in surface water (6) ? −? ? ?Surface water salinity (conductivity; s.a.r.) (5) (±?) ±?

(Unpolluted) air conservation (++) (−?) (++) (±?)Pesticide output ++ −? ++ −?Ammonia output ++? −? ++? −?Smell ++ +? ++ ++?Presence of indicator lichens and plant species (7) ? ? ? ?

Wild-fire prevention (8)Fire-resistant species ± ±?Adoption of fire-control practices ± ±?

Food/fiber sufficiency (on farm or local level) and quality (++) (±?) (++) (+?)Minimally per countries’ regional level of food production ++ ++? ++ ++?Absence of (health-stressing) additives ++ − − ++ ±?Taste (9) ++ + ++ ++?

Carrying capacity (++) (− −) (++) (− −?)Balanced soil organic matter % for the total crop rotation ++ − −? ++ − −?Ratio annual crops area/polyannual crops area (10) + − − ++ − −?Ratio nitrogen input area/arable area (nitrogen input area = + − − + − −area where nitrogen-fixing crops are cultivated) (10)Reproduction of vegetation/land unit indicator species ? ? ? ?for overgrazing and undergrazing (11)

Resource efficiency (++?) (− −?) (++?) (–?)Nutrient balance on farm level ++ − −? ++ − −?Nutrient balance on field level and indicator species (ellenberg) (12) ? ? ? ?Internal recycling of external inputs (nutrient and/or chemicals) ++? − −? ++? − −?Idem for energy (input/biomass output) +? − −? ++ − −?Efficient water management + −? + ±?

Site adapted production system (++) (−?) (++) (−?)Plant species +? ? ++? +?Crops ++ ±? + ±?Husbandry ++ ++?Other plantings ++ ? ++ ?Tillage (types of, timing) ++ −? ++ − −?Manuring (amounts, timing) ++ −? ++ −?

a Refers to main aspects of the Environment (using the 1995 version of the Table).b The numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3.c Relative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive;± neutral/intermediate;− negative;− − very negative; ( ) subtotal per criterium,

averaged over the parameters of that criterium.



Criteria and parametersb La Selva La Selva Poggio Antico P. Antico(2. Ecology) farm surroundings farm surroundings


Biodiversity (+) (− −?) (++) (+?)Species(flora/fauna), with minimal population (?) (?) (?) (?)

Minimal standards for species diversity per biotope (13) ? ? ? ?Elected taxa (land use-type dependent) (14) ? ? ? ?

Biotopes (+) (− −?) (++) (+?)Minimal standards for biotopes per farmtype ? ? ? ?(in relation to potential-cultural-vegetation) (13)Number (14) + − −? ++ +?

Ecosystems, with minimal functioning (15) ? ? ? ?Ecological coherence: (+?) (− −?) (++?) (±?)

On site, vertical coherence (?) (?) (?) (?)Site-related indicator species ? ? ? ?

In the landscape, horizontal coherence (+) (− −?) (++) (+?)Connectivity within species/biotopes-webbing + − −? ++ +?

In time, cyclical coherences (+?) (− −?) (++?) (+?)Self reproduction of species and biotopes (full lifecycles) ±? − − +? ±?Season compliancy (16) ++ ±? ++ ++?Appropriate decomposition is organised (not to destroy ? ? ? ?the system’s vital functions) (17)Appropriate succession is organised: ecosystems are ? ? ? ?allowed to ‘grow’ (accumulation of ecocapital) (17)

Eco-regulation (++) (− −?) (++) (−?)Ecological pest and disease control: degree of presence of ++ − −? ++ −?pests and diseases without chemical intervention anddegree of activity of the farmer for the ecological control (18)Per crop and pest minimal two predators present in the system (19) ? ? ? ?

Animal welfare (husbandry)(20) (+) (++)Shelter against the adverse weather (sun, wind, rain) (21) + ++Room for natural behaviour (21) ++ ++

a Refers to main aspects of the Ecology (using the 1995 version of the Table).b The numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3.c Relative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive;± neutral/intermediate;− negative;− − very negative; ( ) subtotal per criterium,


Poggio Antico farm is a cooperative 100% biody-namic farm (Demeter) that has been active for about12 years and in which the members of the cooperativefarm live in community. The total surface is 102 ha;the utilized agricultural surface is 71 ha.

The land use of Poggio Antico farm consists of:arable crops and fodder crops in rotation (45 ha in to-tal); olive groves (17 ha); vineyards (9 ha); woodland(coppice, 26 ha); shrubland (broom, 3 ha); unproduc-tive land (buildings, farm yards, roads, hedgerows,ponds, etc., 2 ha).

Livestock is represented by 40 cows (dairy breed),20 sheep (for wool), 12 horses (draught and ridinghorses). One well, located in the upper part of the farm

land, is used for human and animal consumption; thereare also two very small artificial ponds, in the lowerpart.

For the fertilization, there is a complete re-utilizationof by-products: composted manure; stubble preserv-ing, with the addition of liquid manure; green manure.There is a moderate level of mechanization, usinganimal traction too, and minimum tillage is adoptedwithout turning the clods.

In the surroundings, differently from Poggio An-tico farm, there are mainly vineyards and olive grovesin the higher (more sandy) parts of the landscape andthere is practically a monoculture of annual cropsin the lower (clayey) parts of the slopes and in the



Criteria and parametersb La Selva La Selva Poggio Antico P. Antico(3. Economy) farm surroundings farm surroundings


Subsistence on material level (welfare) (++?) (+?) (+?) (+?)Family survival (cash income/year—minimum income of region/ ++ +? + +?year—minimum income of region/year—year’s full labour)Return of invested capital ++? ? +? ?Own capital as % from total farm investment ++? ? +? ?% Of farm income paid to banks ? ? ? ?Number of people earning income (per 100 ha of the farm surface) (22) + ? +? ?Agricultural income (per 100 ha) (22) ++ +? + +?Target/objective of the farm’s income (who takes the profit/carries

The losses) ? ? ? ?Direct eu-type of incomes (23) +? ? +? ?Unpaid income (food, fuel, housing, ...) + ? + ?Overflow of urban/industrial profits to rural-area-support preferred over vice versa ? ? ? ?

Green economy (24) (?) (?) (?) (?)Social costs (unpaid for by the farmer should be low) ? ? ? ?Polluter payments (farmer payed, can help to compensate for Social costs) ? ? ? ?Social benefits (unpaid for by the society; to be rewarded by direct payments ? ? ? ?under conditions preventing contra-productivity/misuse)

Economic base in agriculture and/or forestry (+?) (?) (+?) (?)Financial contribution to regional econo‘my (buying and sellingcommodities and services) +? +? +? +?Costs invested to make profit (=agric. income; aim for cost-efficiency), ? ? ? ?to be specified per region (soil price/quality, infrastructure, etc.)Income diversification on farm (elevation, processing, adding value on the farm +? ? +? ?can increase profitability)Number of people living on the farm and earning money in the region (more +? ? +? ?people living in the rural area)

a Refers to main aspects of the Economy (using the 1995 version of the Table).b The numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3.c Relative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive;± neutral/intermediate;− negative;− − very negative; ( ) subtotal per criterium,


valley-bottoms. Croplands here are mixed to wood-land and shrubland as in Poggio Antico farm, but nolivestock is raised. Furthermore, the mechanization ishigh and soil conservation practices are almost ab-sent. The use of chemical fertilization and pesticides ismoderate on the hills and high in the valley-bottoms.

3. Comments about the proposed criteria andparameters

First, a general remark regarding the parameters ofthe list as used can be made: it seems necessary to findmore practical parameters; several still appear to berather theoretical and difficult to apply, but probablythis opinion is partly due to the fact that in our panel

the disciplinary competences were incomplete.Apart from this general comment, here follows a list

of more specific remarks (the numbers refer to Tables1–6):1. For ‘soil erosion’, as for other criteria, it is better

to use parameters reflectingeffectsrather than pa-rameters reflectingpractices, as those proposed inthe third version of the list (shelter belts, contourploughing, winter cover). Some practices cannotalways be seen as generally ‘good’ practices, forexample ‘contour ploughing’: in certain circum-stances, like in sloping heavy soils, the tillage hasto be done along the slope to help the aeration; inthis case the conservation practices are connectedto optimal slope-length and ground cover. For thisreason, we suggest the use of parameters reflect-



Criteria and parametersb La Selva La Selva Poggio landscape P. Antico(4. Sociology) farm surroundings Antico surroundings

landscapec landscapec farmc landscapec

Well-being of people (+) (?) (++) (?)changes in number of people living on the farm’s land (100 ha) (22) + ? ++ ?farmer’s education ++ ? ++ ?farms’ successors ? ? ? ?followers of the farms example + ? + ?professional excursions to the farm + ? + ?

Local participation and responsibility (±?) (?) (+?) (?)membership regional councils ? ? ? ?idem farmers organisations (cooperatives) ? ? ++ ?organising outlets (professional training) (25) + ? ++ ?off-farm income (=working in the region) ? ? ? ?social support for the farm (labour, finances, other) ± ? + ?cooperation with NGOs (nature protection, environment, others) ? ? ? ?consumer/participation groups +? ? +? ?

Accessibility of the landscape (+?) (+?) (++?) (+?)general excursions to the farm (consumers, locals, NGOs) + ? + ?roads through the land (foothpaths) ± ? + ?hunting, fishing, jogging, camping (ao) + +? ++ +?self-picking ± ? ±? ?on-farm sales ++ ? ++ ?

Awareness raising (+?) (?) (++) (?)Questions to the management on:

the natural environment and natural resources, lifecycles + ? ++ ?and ecological webbing)the social environment (links with consumers, urbans, ++ ? + ?tourists, colleagues, etc., up to global scale)the cultural environment (perceptions of aesthetics, paradigms, religions) +? ? ++ ?the willingness to act (accepting responsibilities) ++? ? ++ ?

a Refers to main aspects of the Sociology (using the 1995 version of the Table).b The numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3.c Relative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive;± neutral/intermediate;− negative;− − very negative; ( ) subtotal per criterium,


ing effects which can be surveyed very easily: ‘ac-tual erosion traces on the farm (rills and gullies,soil deposition in lower parts of fields)’, ‘siltingup of rivers and canals (on-site and off-site)’ and‘floodings (off-site)’, even if the last one does notreflect only soil erosion.

2. ‘Soil erosion’ is not the only form of ‘soil degra-dation’. We suggest to introduce this last item tooand its most relevant parameters: ‘loss of structureof topsoil (increase of bulk density; crust forma-tion)’ and ‘soil salinity (soil water conductivity)’.In some cases, other types of degradation are rel-evant besides those proposed here.

3. For ‘water conservation’ it is useful to distin-guish between the conditions of ground water and

those of surface water. As it has been remarkedabove, the proposed parameters ‘number of cattleunits/ha’ and ‘winter cover’ do not reflecteffects.

4. Beside other parameters, it seems useful to alsomaintain more generic parameters like ‘waterquality’ because it is not always possible to usethe more specific ones.

5. In many dry coastal areas ‘salinity’ and ‘saliniza-tion of ground water’ are very important issues.

6. For the reason explained in point 4, it seems usefulto rescue the parameters ‘nitrate levels in surfacewater’ and ‘phosphate levels in the water’, whichwere included in former versions of the list.

7. For the criterium ‘(clean) air conservation’, in-stead of the proposed parameter ‘lichens’, which



Criteria and parametersb La Selva La Selva Poggio Antico P. Antico(5. Psychology) farm surrounding farm surroundings


AestheticsVisual elements(mind the exposure, weather, daytime, season) (+) (− −) (++) (++)

Size, context and structure + − − ++ ++Shape and texture + − − ++ ++Light and colours + − ++ ++Contrasts (in the above) + − − ++ ++Variation, chaos and order (in the above) ++ − − ++ ++

Smells (sort of smells, ranging between) (++) (+?) (++) (++?)‘Pure-well balanced-smells’ like flowers, herbs, hay, straw, soil, + ±? ++ +litter, humus, farm-yard-manure‘Stinking’-sharp, penetrating-like: intensive animal production, ++ ++? ++ ++?liquid manure, ammonia, sulphur-dioxide, exhaust fumes

Smells (strength and continuity of smells, ranging between) (++) (++?) (++) (++?)Temporal gusts (25) ? ? ? ?Continuous stress ++ ++? ++ ++?

Sounds (sort of sounds, ranging between) (+) (±) (++) (+)‘Silence’: livestock, birds, wind in trees and crops, water (streams, waves) + ±? ++ +‘Noise’: industry, traffic, windmills + +? ++ +

Sounds (strength and continuity of the sounds, ranging between) (++) (++?) (++) (++?)Temporal gusts (26) ? ? ? ?Continuous stress ++ ++? ++ ++?

Subjective identity (+) (− −?) (++) (+?)Impression of ‘genius loci’ + − − ++ +Legibility/readability/recognisability (common history of local nature and culture)± − −? ++ ++?Inspiration for personal involvement/participation ++ − −? ++ +?Options/accessibility for participation + ? + ?Actual participation (see also sociology: local participation and responsibility) + ? + ?

a Refers to main aspects of the Psychology (using the 1995 version of the Table).b The numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3.c Relative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive;± neutral/intermediate;− negative;− −very negative; ( ) subtotal per criterium,


was meant to refer to lichens sensible to air pol-lution, we would prefer ‘presence of indicatorlichens and/or plant species’; this parameter, any-how, can be used only when data are availablebecause indicators of specific pollutants are mon-itored.

8. Especially in the Mediterranean regions, wild-fireshave very important impacts on the ecology andthe economy of farm-landscapes. We suggest theintroduction of the criterium ‘wild-fire preven-tion’ and of the parameters ‘fire-resistant species’and adoption of fire-control practices’.

9. For the criterium ‘food/fiber sufficiency andquality’, we think it is important to add theparameter ‘taste’ to the proposed ‘absence of(health-stressing) additives’: it is not enough for

a product to behealthy, it should to betasty too.Not always a genuine food is also a good one(apart from preconceived opinions)!

10. In the concerted action the criterium ‘carrying ca-pacity’ has a wider meaning: the maximum levelwhereto a natural system can produce withoutbeing destroyed. We suggest the introduction ofthe parameters ‘ratio annual crops area/polyannualcrops area’ and ‘ratio nitrogen input area/arablearea’ which are based on the principle that consid-ers polyannual fodder crops and nitrogen-fixingcrops as influencing positively soil fertility.

11. Even if the ‘carrying capacity of pastures’ is a re-stricted issue in comparison with the wider mean-ing given here to ‘carrying capacity’, it seems use-ful to give room to it somewhere in the list and



Criteria and parametersb La Selva La Selva Poggio P. Antico(6. Physiognomy and cultural geography) farm surroundings Antico farm surroundings


Objective identity (+) (±?) (++) (+)Identity of the farm in the landscape (+) (− −) (++) (+)

Geo/ecological elements ++ − − ++ +Historical elements − − ++ ++?Typical elements ++ − − ++ +

Identity of the landscape in the region (27) (+) (+) (+) (+)Geo/ecological elements ++ ++ ++ ++Historical elements − − + +Typical elements + + + +

Landscape structureDiversity of landscape elements, landscape patterns, land-units and + − − ++ +landscape types (coinciding with the vertical coherence betweenland use and the (a) biotic factors)Recognisability of coherence between landscape components (+?) (− −) (++?) (+?)Functional relationships + − − ++ +?Historical relationships − − − + +?Spatial relationships (+) (−?) (++) (+?)

Horizontal relationships ++ − −? ++ ++?Vertical relationships ± − −? + ±?

Temporal relationships ++? ? ++ ?Use of local building material ± ±? + +?Historic continuity (±) (− −?) (++) (+?)Persistent structures ± − −? ++ ++?Persistent elements ± ±? ++ +?Persistent patterns ± − −? + +?

a Refers to main aspects of the Physiognomy and Cultural geography (using the 1995 version of the Table).b The numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3.c Relative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive;± neutral/intermediate;− negative;− −very negative; ( ) subtotal per criterium,


we suggest to maintain the parameter ‘reproduc-tion of vegetation/land unit indicator species forovergrazing and undergrazing’.

12. For the criterium ‘resource efficiency’, it seemsuseful to rescue the possibility to use ‘indicatorspecies’ for the parameter ‘nutrient balance onfield level’, when it is possible.

13. Regarding the criterium ‘biodiversity’, even if theidentification of ‘minimal standards’ for‘speciesdiversity per biotope’ and for ‘biotopes per farm-type’ is correct, it does not seem to be very viablein practice because of the very great variability ofsituations.

14. To help in overcoming what is remarked above,we suggest to rescue the parameters ‘selectedtaxa (land use-type dependent)’ and ‘number’ (ofbiotopes).

15. It is not clear how to practically use the cri-terium/parameter ‘ecosystems, with minimalfunctioning’.

16. Regarding the criterium ‘ecological coherence intime, cyclical coherence’, the meaning of the pa-rameter ‘daytime/season/year (‘s & age) compli-ancy’ proposed in the former list is not completelyclear: we suggest to use simply ‘season compli-ancy’.

17. For the same criterium, it is not clear how to prac-tically use the parameters ‘appropriate decompo-sition is organized’ and ‘appropriate succession isorganized’.

18. For the criterium ‘eco-regulation’, we suggest theparameter ‘ecological pest and decease control’ topoint out the degree of involvement and successof the farmer.


Table 7Final rating of the farm-landscape performances of the landscapes of the two organic farms and their non-organically managed surroundinglandscapesa

Criteria La Selva La Selva Poggio P. Anticofarm surroundings Antico farm surroundingslandscapeb landscapeb landscapeb landscapeb

1. Environment ++ −? ++ −?Clean environment (+) (−) (+) (−?)

(fertile) Soil conservation ++ − − ++ − −?(clean ) Water conservation ±? −? +? ±?(unpolluted) Air conservation ++ −? ++ ±?Wild-fire prevention ± ±?

Food/fiber sufficiency (on farm or local level) and quality ++ ±? ++ +?Carrying capacity ++ − − ++ − −?Resource efficiency ++? − −? ++? − −?Site adapted production system ++ −? ++ −?2. Ecology + − − ++ ±?Biodiversity: (+) (− −?) (++) (+?)

Species(flora/fauna), with minimal population ? ? ? ?Biotopes + − −? ++ +?Ecosystems, with minimal functioning (15) ? ? ? ?

Ecological coherence: (+?) (− −?) (++?) (±?)On site, vertical coherence ? ? ? ?In the landscape, horizontal coherence + − −? ++ +?In time, cyclical coherences +? −? +? +?

Eco-regulation ++ − −? ++ −?Animal welfare (husbandry) + ++3. Economy ++? +? +? +?

Subsistence on material level (welfare) ++? +? +? +?Green economy ? ? ? ?Economic base in agriculture and/or forestry +? ? +? +

4. Sociology +? +? ++? +?Well-being of people + ? ++ ?Local participation and responsibility ±? ? +? ?Accessibility of the landscape +? +? ++? +?Awareness raising +? ? ++ ?

5. Psychology + − ++ ++?AestheticsVisual elements + − − ++ ++Smells ++ +? ++ ++?Sounds ++ +? ++ ++?Subjective identity + − −? ++ +?

6. Physiognomy& cultural geography + − −? ++ +?Objective identity + ±? ++ +Landscape structure + − − ++ +Recognisability of coherence between landscape components +? − − ++? +?Historic continuity ± − −? ++? +?

Total evaluation + −? ++ +?

a The averaged scorings per criterium are presented here for the Tables 1–6, and averaged for all the criteria of the six Tables under‘Total evaluation’ in the bottom row. This shows the indication that each organic farm performs more sustainably than in the non-organicfarming in its surrounding. It also indicates that they may perform more sustainable independent from the actual landscape system.

b Relative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive;± neutral/intermediate;− negative;− − very negative.


Fig. 1. Location of the two checked farms within the Tuscanlandscape systems (Italy). La Selva farm (in subsystem PC6 ofthe landscape system of Coastal Plains). Poggio Antico farm (insubsystem CP5 of the landscape system of Pliocene Hills).

19. The parameter ‘per crop and pest minimal twopredators present in the system’, even if it is cor-rect, does not seem very viable in practice.

20. About the criterium ‘animal welfare (husbandry)’,it is necessary to recall and select the ‘relevantstandards’ proposed by NGOs.

21. The parameters ‘shelter against the adverseweather (sun, wind, rain)’ and ‘room for naturalbehaviour’ seem to be the most relevant ones forthis issue.

22. Regarding the main aspect ‘economy’, many pa-rameters are indicated divided by ‘100 ha’. Inmany situations the farm size is much smaller: itis better to measure ‘per hectare’.

23. For the criterium ‘subsistence on material level(welfare)’, it is not clear wether the parameter ‘di-rect EU-type of incomes’ has to be taken in a pos-itive or in a negative way. On the other hand, theissue of the payment of ‘environmental services’of sustainable agriculture (particularly in marginalareas) should be seen as one of the final results ofthe evaluation.

24. It is not clear how to use the parameters proposedfor the criterium ‘green economy’.

25. For the criterium ‘local participation and respon-sibility’, in the parameter ‘organising outlets’ weinclude the organisation of ‘professional training’.

26. For the main aspect ‘psychology’, the meaning ofthe parameter ‘temporal gusts’ is not clear.

27. For the main aspect ‘physiognomy/cultural geog-raphy’, it is not completely clear how to use thecriterium/parameter ‘identity of the landscape inthe region’: in fact in the examples taken for theevaluation, when you have more than one land-scape type in the same region, each one seems toscore the same degree ofidentity.

4. The method for computing values used in theevaluation

The goal of selected criteria and parameters is toallow ‘relative’evaluations among farm-landscapeswithin a certain geographical situation, and to addressefforts towards the most appropriate solution. Thegoal should not be to support (financial or otherwise)merely a ‘beautiful’ landscape instead of an ‘ugly’landscape, but to support the appropriate solution forthe sustainable management of any kind of landscape.Wether beauty and sustainability on the one hand andnon-sustainability and non-beauty on the other gotogether or not remains as yet open for research.

For this reason, we think it is not yet relevant torank different farms with respect to all the criteriapresented in the six Tables. It may be sufficient todevelop a tool that allows the comparison of a farmto be ‘environmentally and economically acceptable’one for the same situation.

For our rapid assessment we decided to avoid nu-merical values, and used a scoring method that isclearly ‘qualitative’, namely marking: ++ for very pos-itive; + for positive;± for neutral;−for negative and− − for very negative performance of the farm per pa-rameter of the Tables 1 to 6. No score is given to pa-rameters that were not relevant for the particular farmsituation. A question mark (?) is used when no infor-mation was available or when the rating was deemeduncertain.

The problem of weighting the parameters pertainingto each criterium, the criteria relevant for each main


aspect of the assessment and the main aspects for thefinal evaluation is still open. For a wider discussionof this aspect we refer to Andreoli et al. (1998), orAndreoli and Tellarini (2000)

In this exercise, we assume that all criteria have thesame weight and we added the scores per parameterper criterium to find average values for the all criteria,and subsequently for each criterium per major topic,and so on for the final assessment per farm for allTables.

In Tables 1–6 criteria and parameters relevant foreach main topic of the evaluation are assessed. Table7 contains the recapitulation of the assessment and thefinal evaluation.

5. Conclusions

The main aim of the concerted action was to pro-duce a tool that allows a comprehensive (holistic) in-terdisciplinary evaluation of farms and their nature andlandscape production potential. To this end a systemof six sets of criteria was developed, covering all rele-vant aspects of farm-landscapes, to be assessed to war-rant sustainable landscape management. The six wereenvironmental studies, ecology, economy, sociology,psychology, physiognomy and cultural geography.

The analysis of the assessment Tables 1–6 presentedhere shows that the organic farms in both areas do adda considerable number of values to the surroundingnon-organically managed landscape.

In La Selva farm the main problems of non-sus-tainability as occurring in the surrounding landscapeare overcome. This relatively positive performance ap-pears in the majority of the criteria assessed: it seemsa consistent feature of the organic farming system.

The criteria with positive scores for the checkedfarms are: for environmental studies (Table 1): fer-tile soil conservation, unpolluted air conservation,food/fibre sufficiency and quality, carrying capac-ity, resource efficiency and site adapted productionsystem. For ecology (Table 2): biotopes, horizontalcoherence in the landscape and eco-regulation. Forpsychology (Table 5): visual elements and subjec-tive identity. For physiognomy/cultural geography(Table 6): landscape structure and recognisability ofcoherence between landscape.

The main aspects are summarised as follows:In the surroundings of La Selva farm there is a

strong trivialization of the landscape, which in manyplaces becomes a flat homogeneous monoculture. Inthe surrounding farms, as soil conservation practicesare not adopted, more soil erosion occurs. The highlevel use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in thesurrounding farms causes more pollution of the waterbodies.

In Poggio Antico farm also shows a better per-formance than the surrounding area, even though inthis Pliocene Hills area the general situation is betterthan in the Coastal Plain and almost sustainable undernon-organic farming practices.

The criteria that best show the different perfor-mances are: for environment (Table 1): the conser-vation of fertile soil and unpolluted air, the respectfor the carrying capacity, the resource efficiency andsite adapted character of the production system. Forecology (Table 2): the eco-regulation of pests anddiseases.

In the surroundings of Poggio Antico farm there isalso a certain trivialization of the landscape but, at themacro scale, the landscape is characterized by a fairdegree of complexity and, partly, of biological diver-sity. In the non-organic farms of the surroundings, thesoil erosion is notably higher. The erosion is particu-larly remarkable for the off-site effects of siltation ofrivers, canals and floods. The farms in the surround-ings do also cause a higher degree of pollution. Theoff-site pollution of water bodies is relevant, mainlydue to the leaching and run-off of chemical fertilizersand pesticides.

Finally, it must be stressed that the table of crite-ria and parameters developed in the concerted actionis not meant to be filled giving a rate to all the nu-merous items. On one hand, as said before, the tableis a check list that allows a holistic evaluation whichconsiders all main aspects of farm performance seenfrom a landscape perspective. On the other hand, thetable is to be used as a menu of possible criteria andparameters, which has to be adapted to the differentsituations, with regard to, e.g., the available data. Ineach situation the most relevant measurable economi-cal, ecological and cultural parameters for sustainabil-ity must be selected. In the exercise described in thispaper, checking two farms, not all parameters wereuseful, necessary or available. Nevertheless, the set of


parameters on which rating was possible, sufficed toallow a comprehensive assessment of all relevant as-pects of the farm-landscape system.

References

Andreoli, M., De Simone, A., Rossi, R., Tellarini, V., 1998. Aprocedural proposal for the evaluation of situations on the basisof a set of qualitative data, University of Pisa.

Andreoli, M., Tellarini, V., 2000. Farm sustainability evaluationMethodology and practice. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 77, 43–52.

Rossi, R., Nota, D., Fossi, F., 1997. Landscape and natureproduction capacity of organic types of agriculture: examplesof organic farms in two Tuscan landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst.Environ. 63, 159–171.

Stobbelaar, D.J., Van Mansvelt, J.D. (Eds.), 1994. In: Proc. 1stPlenary Meeting of the EU-Concerted Action: The Landscapeand Nature Production Capacity of Organic/SustainableTypes of Agriculture. Deptartment of Ecological Agriculture,Agricultural University of Wageningen, Wageningen, 194 pp.

Tellarini, V., Caporali, F., 2000. An input/output methodology toevaluate farms as sustainable agro-ecosystems: an applicationof indicators to farms in central Italy. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.77, 111–123.

Van Mansvelt, J.D., Stobbelaar, D.J. (Eds.), 1997. Landscape valuesin agriculture: strategies for the improvement of sustainableproduction. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., No. 63, Special issue, 169pp.

Van Mansvelt, J.D., Van der Lubbe, M., 1998. Checklist forsustainable landscape management. Final report of the EUconcerted action AIR3-CT93-1210 The landscape and natureproduction capacity of organic/sustainable types of agriculture.Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 181 pp.

Nature and landscape production potentials of organic types of agriculture: a check of evaluation...

Documents

Transcript of Nature and landscape production potentials of organic types of agriculture: a check of evaluation...