Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models

A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level as...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Joseph MacPherson [verfasserIn] Carsten Paul [verfasserIn] Katharina Helming [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2020

Schlagwörter:	agriculture SA ecosystem services SDGs CICES tools models

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Sustainability - MDPI AG, 2009, 12(2020), 16, p 6617
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:12 ; year:2020 ; number:16, p 6617

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3390/su12166617

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ061222860

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ061222860
003	DE-627
005	20240412220452.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230228s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.3390/su12166617 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ061222860
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJa5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a TD194-195
050		0	\|a TJ807-830
050		0	\|a GE1-350
100	0		\|a Joseph MacPherson \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models
264		1	\|c 2020
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level assessment tools and models converge on these new paradigms of sustainability is important for drawing comparison on sustainability performances of farming systems, conducting meta-analyses and upscaling local responses to global driving forces. In this study, a coverage analysis was performed for several farm-level sustainability assessment (SA) tools (SAFA, RISE, KSNL, DLG) and models (MODAM, MONICA, APSIM), in regard to their potential for incorporating ES and contribution to attaining the SDGs. Lists of agricultural-relevant CICES classes and SDG targets were compiled and matched against the indicators of the tools and models. The results showed that SAFA possessed the most comprehensive coverage of ES and SDGs, followed by RISE and KSNL. In comparison to models, SA tools were observed to have a higher degree of potential for covering ES and SDGs, which was attributed to larger and broader indicators sets. However, this study also suggested that, overall, current tools and models do not sufficiently articulate the concept of ecosystem services.
650		4	\|a agriculture
650		4	\|a SA
650		4	\|a ecosystem services
650		4	\|a SDGs CICES
650		4	\|a tools
650		4	\|a models
653		0	\|a Environmental effects of industries and plants
653		0	\|a Renewable energy sources
653		0	\|a Environmental sciences
700	0		\|a Carsten Paul \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Katharina Helming \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Sustainability \|d MDPI AG, 2009 \|g 12(2020), 16, p 6617 \|w (DE-627)610604120 \|w (DE-600)2518383-7 \|x 20711050 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:12 \|g year:2020 \|g number:16, p 6617
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166617 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/a5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6617 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2071-1050 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_224
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2507
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 12 \|j 2020 \|e 16, p 6617

Indexfelder

author_variant	j m jm c p cp k h kh
matchkey_str	article:20711050:2020----::ikneoytmevcsntedsoameeass
hierarchy_sort_str	2020
callnumber-subject-code	TD
publishDate	2020
allfields	10.3390/su12166617 doi (DE-627)DOAJ061222860 (DE-599)DOAJa5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TD194-195 TJ807-830 GE1-350 Joseph MacPherson verfasserin aut Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level assessment tools and models converge on these new paradigms of sustainability is important for drawing comparison on sustainability performances of farming systems, conducting meta-analyses and upscaling local responses to global driving forces. In this study, a coverage analysis was performed for several farm-level sustainability assessment (SA) tools (SAFA, RISE, KSNL, DLG) and models (MODAM, MONICA, APSIM), in regard to their potential for incorporating ES and contribution to attaining the SDGs. Lists of agricultural-relevant CICES classes and SDG targets were compiled and matched against the indicators of the tools and models. The results showed that SAFA possessed the most comprehensive coverage of ES and SDGs, followed by RISE and KSNL. In comparison to models, SA tools were observed to have a higher degree of potential for covering ES and SDGs, which was attributed to larger and broader indicators sets. However, this study also suggested that, overall, current tools and models do not sufficiently articulate the concept of ecosystem services. agriculture SA ecosystem services SDGs CICES tools models Environmental effects of industries and plants Renewable energy sources Environmental sciences Carsten Paul verfasserin aut Katharina Helming verfasserin aut In Sustainability MDPI AG, 2009 12(2020), 16, p 6617 (DE-627)610604120 (DE-600)2518383-7 20711050 nnns volume:12 year:2020 number:16, p 6617 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166617 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6617 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2071-1050 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2020 16, p 6617
spelling	10.3390/su12166617 doi (DE-627)DOAJ061222860 (DE-599)DOAJa5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TD194-195 TJ807-830 GE1-350 Joseph MacPherson verfasserin aut Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level assessment tools and models converge on these new paradigms of sustainability is important for drawing comparison on sustainability performances of farming systems, conducting meta-analyses and upscaling local responses to global driving forces. In this study, a coverage analysis was performed for several farm-level sustainability assessment (SA) tools (SAFA, RISE, KSNL, DLG) and models (MODAM, MONICA, APSIM), in regard to their potential for incorporating ES and contribution to attaining the SDGs. Lists of agricultural-relevant CICES classes and SDG targets were compiled and matched against the indicators of the tools and models. The results showed that SAFA possessed the most comprehensive coverage of ES and SDGs, followed by RISE and KSNL. In comparison to models, SA tools were observed to have a higher degree of potential for covering ES and SDGs, which was attributed to larger and broader indicators sets. However, this study also suggested that, overall, current tools and models do not sufficiently articulate the concept of ecosystem services. agriculture SA ecosystem services SDGs CICES tools models Environmental effects of industries and plants Renewable energy sources Environmental sciences Carsten Paul verfasserin aut Katharina Helming verfasserin aut In Sustainability MDPI AG, 2009 12(2020), 16, p 6617 (DE-627)610604120 (DE-600)2518383-7 20711050 nnns volume:12 year:2020 number:16, p 6617 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166617 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6617 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2071-1050 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2020 16, p 6617
allfields_unstemmed	10.3390/su12166617 doi (DE-627)DOAJ061222860 (DE-599)DOAJa5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TD194-195 TJ807-830 GE1-350 Joseph MacPherson verfasserin aut Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level assessment tools and models converge on these new paradigms of sustainability is important for drawing comparison on sustainability performances of farming systems, conducting meta-analyses and upscaling local responses to global driving forces. In this study, a coverage analysis was performed for several farm-level sustainability assessment (SA) tools (SAFA, RISE, KSNL, DLG) and models (MODAM, MONICA, APSIM), in regard to their potential for incorporating ES and contribution to attaining the SDGs. Lists of agricultural-relevant CICES classes and SDG targets were compiled and matched against the indicators of the tools and models. The results showed that SAFA possessed the most comprehensive coverage of ES and SDGs, followed by RISE and KSNL. In comparison to models, SA tools were observed to have a higher degree of potential for covering ES and SDGs, which was attributed to larger and broader indicators sets. However, this study also suggested that, overall, current tools and models do not sufficiently articulate the concept of ecosystem services. agriculture SA ecosystem services SDGs CICES tools models Environmental effects of industries and plants Renewable energy sources Environmental sciences Carsten Paul verfasserin aut Katharina Helming verfasserin aut In Sustainability MDPI AG, 2009 12(2020), 16, p 6617 (DE-627)610604120 (DE-600)2518383-7 20711050 nnns volume:12 year:2020 number:16, p 6617 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166617 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6617 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2071-1050 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2020 16, p 6617
allfieldsGer	10.3390/su12166617 doi (DE-627)DOAJ061222860 (DE-599)DOAJa5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TD194-195 TJ807-830 GE1-350 Joseph MacPherson verfasserin aut Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level assessment tools and models converge on these new paradigms of sustainability is important for drawing comparison on sustainability performances of farming systems, conducting meta-analyses and upscaling local responses to global driving forces. In this study, a coverage analysis was performed for several farm-level sustainability assessment (SA) tools (SAFA, RISE, KSNL, DLG) and models (MODAM, MONICA, APSIM), in regard to their potential for incorporating ES and contribution to attaining the SDGs. Lists of agricultural-relevant CICES classes and SDG targets were compiled and matched against the indicators of the tools and models. The results showed that SAFA possessed the most comprehensive coverage of ES and SDGs, followed by RISE and KSNL. In comparison to models, SA tools were observed to have a higher degree of potential for covering ES and SDGs, which was attributed to larger and broader indicators sets. However, this study also suggested that, overall, current tools and models do not sufficiently articulate the concept of ecosystem services. agriculture SA ecosystem services SDGs CICES tools models Environmental effects of industries and plants Renewable energy sources Environmental sciences Carsten Paul verfasserin aut Katharina Helming verfasserin aut In Sustainability MDPI AG, 2009 12(2020), 16, p 6617 (DE-627)610604120 (DE-600)2518383-7 20711050 nnns volume:12 year:2020 number:16, p 6617 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166617 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6617 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2071-1050 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2020 16, p 6617
allfieldsSound	10.3390/su12166617 doi (DE-627)DOAJ061222860 (DE-599)DOAJa5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TD194-195 TJ807-830 GE1-350 Joseph MacPherson verfasserin aut Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level assessment tools and models converge on these new paradigms of sustainability is important for drawing comparison on sustainability performances of farming systems, conducting meta-analyses and upscaling local responses to global driving forces. In this study, a coverage analysis was performed for several farm-level sustainability assessment (SA) tools (SAFA, RISE, KSNL, DLG) and models (MODAM, MONICA, APSIM), in regard to their potential for incorporating ES and contribution to attaining the SDGs. Lists of agricultural-relevant CICES classes and SDG targets were compiled and matched against the indicators of the tools and models. The results showed that SAFA possessed the most comprehensive coverage of ES and SDGs, followed by RISE and KSNL. In comparison to models, SA tools were observed to have a higher degree of potential for covering ES and SDGs, which was attributed to larger and broader indicators sets. However, this study also suggested that, overall, current tools and models do not sufficiently articulate the concept of ecosystem services. agriculture SA ecosystem services SDGs CICES tools models Environmental effects of industries and plants Renewable energy sources Environmental sciences Carsten Paul verfasserin aut Katharina Helming verfasserin aut In Sustainability MDPI AG, 2009 12(2020), 16, p 6617 (DE-627)610604120 (DE-600)2518383-7 20711050 nnns volume:12 year:2020 number:16, p 6617 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166617 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6617 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2071-1050 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2020 16, p 6617
language	English
source	In Sustainability 12(2020), 16, p 6617 volume:12 year:2020 number:16, p 6617
sourceStr	In Sustainability 12(2020), 16, p 6617 volume:12 year:2020 number:16, p 6617
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	agriculture SA ecosystem services SDGs CICES tools models Environmental effects of industries and plants Renewable energy sources Environmental sciences
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Sustainability
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Joseph MacPherson @@aut@@ Carsten Paul @@aut@@ Katharina Helming @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	610604120
id	DOAJ061222860
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ061222860</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240412220452.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/su12166617</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ061222860</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJa5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TD194-195</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TJ807-830</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">GE1-350</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Joseph MacPherson</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level assessment tools and models converge on these new paradigms of sustainability is important for drawing comparison on sustainability performances of farming systems, conducting meta-analyses and upscaling local responses to global driving forces. In this study, a coverage analysis was performed for several farm-level sustainability assessment (SA) tools (SAFA, RISE, KSNL, DLG) and models (MODAM, MONICA, APSIM), in regard to their potential for incorporating ES and contribution to attaining the SDGs. Lists of agricultural-relevant CICES classes and SDG targets were compiled and matched against the indicators of the tools and models. The results showed that SAFA possessed the most comprehensive coverage of ES and SDGs, followed by RISE and KSNL. In comparison to models, SA tools were observed to have a higher degree of potential for covering ES and SDGs, which was attributed to larger and broader indicators sets. However, this study also suggested that, overall, current tools and models do not sufficiently articulate the concept of ecosystem services.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">agriculture</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">SA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">ecosystem services</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">SDGs CICES</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">tools</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">models</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Environmental effects of industries and plants</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Renewable energy sources</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Environmental sciences</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Carsten Paul</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Katharina Helming</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Sustainability</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2009</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2020), 16, p 6617</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)610604120</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2518383-7</subfield><subfield code="x">20711050</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:16, p 6617</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166617</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/a5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6617</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2071-1050</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">16, p 6617</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	T - Technology
author	Joseph MacPherson
spellingShingle	Joseph MacPherson misc TD194-195 misc TJ807-830 misc GE1-350 misc agriculture misc SA misc ecosystem services misc SDGs CICES misc tools misc models misc Environmental effects of industries and plants misc Renewable energy sources misc Environmental sciences Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models
authorStr	Joseph MacPherson
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)610604120
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	TD194-195
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	20711050
topic_title	TD194-195 TJ807-830 GE1-350 Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models agriculture SA ecosystem services SDGs CICES tools models
topic	misc TD194-195 misc TJ807-830 misc GE1-350 misc agriculture misc SA misc ecosystem services misc SDGs CICES misc tools misc models misc Environmental effects of industries and plants misc Renewable energy sources misc Environmental sciences
topic_unstemmed	misc TD194-195 misc TJ807-830 misc GE1-350 misc agriculture misc SA misc ecosystem services misc SDGs CICES misc tools misc models misc Environmental effects of industries and plants misc Renewable energy sources misc Environmental sciences
topic_browse	misc TD194-195 misc TJ807-830 misc GE1-350 misc agriculture misc SA misc ecosystem services misc SDGs CICES misc tools misc models misc Environmental effects of industries and plants misc Renewable energy sources misc Environmental sciences
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Sustainability
hierarchy_parent_id	610604120
hierarchy_top_title	Sustainability
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)610604120 (DE-600)2518383-7
title	Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ061222860 (DE-599)DOAJa5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a
title_full	Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models
author_sort	Joseph MacPherson
journal	Sustainability
journalStr	Sustainability
callnumber-first-code	T
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2020
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Joseph MacPherson Carsten Paul Katharina Helming
container_volume	12
class	TD194-195 TJ807-830 GE1-350
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Joseph MacPherson
doi_str_mv	10.3390/su12166617
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	linking ecosystem services and the sdgs to farm-level assessment tools and models
callnumber	TD194-195
title_auth	Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models
abstract	A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level assessment tools and models converge on these new paradigms of sustainability is important for drawing comparison on sustainability performances of farming systems, conducting meta-analyses and upscaling local responses to global driving forces. In this study, a coverage analysis was performed for several farm-level sustainability assessment (SA) tools (SAFA, RISE, KSNL, DLG) and models (MODAM, MONICA, APSIM), in regard to their potential for incorporating ES and contribution to attaining the SDGs. Lists of agricultural-relevant CICES classes and SDG targets were compiled and matched against the indicators of the tools and models. The results showed that SAFA possessed the most comprehensive coverage of ES and SDGs, followed by RISE and KSNL. In comparison to models, SA tools were observed to have a higher degree of potential for covering ES and SDGs, which was attributed to larger and broader indicators sets. However, this study also suggested that, overall, current tools and models do not sufficiently articulate the concept of ecosystem services.
abstractGer	A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level assessment tools and models converge on these new paradigms of sustainability is important for drawing comparison on sustainability performances of farming systems, conducting meta-analyses and upscaling local responses to global driving forces. In this study, a coverage analysis was performed for several farm-level sustainability assessment (SA) tools (SAFA, RISE, KSNL, DLG) and models (MODAM, MONICA, APSIM), in regard to their potential for incorporating ES and contribution to attaining the SDGs. Lists of agricultural-relevant CICES classes and SDG targets were compiled and matched against the indicators of the tools and models. The results showed that SAFA possessed the most comprehensive coverage of ES and SDGs, followed by RISE and KSNL. In comparison to models, SA tools were observed to have a higher degree of potential for covering ES and SDGs, which was attributed to larger and broader indicators sets. However, this study also suggested that, overall, current tools and models do not sufficiently articulate the concept of ecosystem services.
abstract_unstemmed	A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level assessment tools and models converge on these new paradigms of sustainability is important for drawing comparison on sustainability performances of farming systems, conducting meta-analyses and upscaling local responses to global driving forces. In this study, a coverage analysis was performed for several farm-level sustainability assessment (SA) tools (SAFA, RISE, KSNL, DLG) and models (MODAM, MONICA, APSIM), in regard to their potential for incorporating ES and contribution to attaining the SDGs. Lists of agricultural-relevant CICES classes and SDG targets were compiled and matched against the indicators of the tools and models. The results showed that SAFA possessed the most comprehensive coverage of ES and SDGs, followed by RISE and KSNL. In comparison to models, SA tools were observed to have a higher degree of potential for covering ES and SDGs, which was attributed to larger and broader indicators sets. However, this study also suggested that, overall, current tools and models do not sufficiently articulate the concept of ecosystem services.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	16, p 6617
title_short	Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models
url	https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166617 https://doaj.org/article/a5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6617 https://doaj.org/toc/2071-1050
remote_bool	true
author2	Carsten Paul Katharina Helming
author2Str	Carsten Paul Katharina Helming
ppnlink	610604120
callnumber-subject	TD - Environmental Technology
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.3390/su12166617
callnumber-a	TD194-195
up_date	2024-07-03T19:31:34.638Z
_version_	1803587519396184064
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ061222860</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240412220452.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/su12166617</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ061222860</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJa5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TD194-195</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TJ807-830</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">GE1-350</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Joseph MacPherson</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level assessment tools and models converge on these new paradigms of sustainability is important for drawing comparison on sustainability performances of farming systems, conducting meta-analyses and upscaling local responses to global driving forces. In this study, a coverage analysis was performed for several farm-level sustainability assessment (SA) tools (SAFA, RISE, KSNL, DLG) and models (MODAM, MONICA, APSIM), in regard to their potential for incorporating ES and contribution to attaining the SDGs. Lists of agricultural-relevant CICES classes and SDG targets were compiled and matched against the indicators of the tools and models. The results showed that SAFA possessed the most comprehensive coverage of ES and SDGs, followed by RISE and KSNL. In comparison to models, SA tools were observed to have a higher degree of potential for covering ES and SDGs, which was attributed to larger and broader indicators sets. However, this study also suggested that, overall, current tools and models do not sufficiently articulate the concept of ecosystem services.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">agriculture</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">SA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">ecosystem services</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">SDGs CICES</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">tools</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">models</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Environmental effects of industries and plants</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Renewable energy sources</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Environmental sciences</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Carsten Paul</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Katharina Helming</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Sustainability</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2009</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2020), 16, p 6617</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)610604120</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2518383-7</subfield><subfield code="x">20711050</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:16, p 6617</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166617</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/a5f9b119da48465ca80bddef08271a2a</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6617</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2071-1050</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">16, p 6617</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.400996

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?