Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Case Study of an Integrated Framework for Quantifying Agroecosystem Health

  • Published:
Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Agroecosystem health derives from a combination of biophysical and socioeconomic conditions that jointly influence such properties as productivity, sustainability, stability, and equitability. In this case study, we describe and analyze a method to quantify agroecosystem health through a combination of geographically referenced data at various spatial scales. Six key variables were hypothesized to provide a minimum set of conditions required to quantify agroecosystem health: soil health, biodiversity, topography, farm economics, land economics, and social organization. Each of these key variables was quantified by one or more attributes of a study area near Wooster, Ohio. Data sources included remote sensing, digital elevation models, soil maps, county auditor records, and a structured questionnaire of landowners in the study area. These data were combined by an analytical hierarchy process to yield an agroecosystem health index. The two steps in the process were first to combine the data at the pixel scale (30 m2) into key variables with normalized values, and then to combine the key variables into the final index. The analytical hierarchy process model was developed by panels of experts for each key variable and by participants in the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center’s Agroecosystems Management Program for the final agroecosystem health index value. Observed spatial patterns of the agroecosystem health index were then analyzed with respect to the underlying data. Consistent with our hypothesis and the definition of agroecosystems, spatial patterns in the agroecosystem health index were an emergent property of combined socioeconomic and biophysical conditions not apparent in any of the underlying data or key variables. The method proposed in this study permits estimation of agroecosystem health as a function of specific underlying conditions, which combine in complex ways. Because values of the agroecosystem health index and the data underlying them can be analyzed for a particular landscape, the method proposed could be useful to policy makers, educators, service agencies, organizations, and the people who live in the area for finding opportunities to improve the health of their agroecosystem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agro-ecosystem Health Project. 1996. Agroecosystem health. Guelph, Canada: University of Guelph

  • Allen TF, Starr TB. 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp 310

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri MA. 1987. Agroecology: the scientific basis of alternative agriculture. Boulder, Colarado: Westview Press. pp 227

  • Bantayan NC, Bishop ID. 1998. Linking objective and subjective modeling for land use decision making. Landsc Urban Plan 43:35–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett J. 1982. Of time and the enterprise: North American family farm management in a context of resource marginality: based on a decade of research in the Province of Saskatchewan, Canada. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom JC. 1998. Exploring and expanding the landscape values terrain. Faculty Series. Athens (GA): Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia

    Google Scholar 

  • Burel F, Baudry J. 1995. Species biodiversity in changing agricultural landscapes: a case study in the Pays d’Áuge, France. Agric Ecosyst Environ 55:193–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrol CR, Vandermeer JH, Rosset PM. 1990. Agroecology. New York: McGraw Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Chidumayo EN. 1987. A shifting cultivation land use system under population pressure in Zambia. Agrofor Syst 5:15–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifford P, Richardson S, Hémon D. 1989. Assessing the significance of the correlation between two spatial processes. Biometrics 45:123–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Collins WW, Hawtin GC. 1999. Conserving and using crop land biodiversity in agroecosystems. In: Colins WW, Qualset CO, Eds. Biodiversity and agroecosystems. USA: CRC Press. pp 267–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway GR. 1985. Agroecosystem analysis. Agric Adm 20:31–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway GR. 1987. The properties of agroecosystems. Agric Syst 24:95–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R. 1992. Toward an operational definition of ecosystem health. In: Costanza R, Norton BG, Haskell BD, Eds. Ecosystem health – new goals for environmental management. Washington D.C.: Island Press. pp 239

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, Mageau M. 1999. What is a healthy ecosystem? Aquat Ecol 33:105–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton GE. 1982. Managing agricultural systems. London: Applied Science Publishers. pp 161

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumanski PCJ, Hamblin A, Young A. 1997. Land quality indicators. World Bank Discussion Papers. pp 315

  • Dutilleul P. 1993. Modifying the t-test for assessing the correlation between two spatial processes. Biometrics 49:305–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenfeld D. 1992. In: Costanza R, Norton BG, Haskell BD, Eds. Ecosystem health and ecological theories in ecosystem health: new goals for environmental management. Washington D.C.: Island Press. pp 135–43

  • Elkarni F, Mustafa I. 1993. Increasing the utilization of solar energy technologies (SET) in Jordan: Analytic Hierarchy Process. Energy Policy 21:978–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Holling CS, Perrings C. 1996. Biological diversity, ecosystems and the human scale. Ecol Appl 6:1018–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortheringham S, Brunsdon CH, Charlton M. 2000. Quantitative geography. Perspectives on spatial data analysis. London: SAGE Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortin MJ, Payette S. 2002. How to test the significance of the relation between spatially autocorrelated data at the landscape scale: a case study using fire and forest maps. Ecography 9(2):213–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallopin GC. 1994. Agroecosystem health: a guiding concept for agricultural research? In: Nielsen NO, Ed. Agroecosystem health: proceedings of an international workshop. Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph. pp 51–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallopin GC. 1995. The potential of agroecosystem health as a guiding concept for agricultural research. Ecosyst Health 1:129–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Gliesman SR. 1990. In: Gliessman SR, Ed. Agroecology: researching the ecological basis for sustainable agriculture. New York: Springer Verlag. pp 3–10

  • Goldschmidt WR. 1947. As you sow: three studies in the social consequences of agribusiness. Montclair, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun and Co. Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS, Schindler DW, Walker BW, Roughgarden J 1995. Biodiversity in the functioning of ecosystems: an ecological primer and synthesis. In: Perrings CA, Mäler KG, Folke C, Holling CS, Jansson BO, Eds. Biodiversity loss: ecological and economic issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp 44–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurt RD. 1996. The Ohio Frontier: Crucible of the Old Northwest, 1720–1830. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikerd JE. 1993. The need for systems approach to sustainable agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 46:147–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffers G, Libby L. 2002. Current agricultural use value assessment in Ohio. Land Use Series. CDFS-1267-99. http://www.ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1267.html (accessed on 9 December 2002).

  • Kawamura H. 2002. Symbolism and materialism in the ecological analysis of hunting, fishing, and gathering practices among the contemporary Nez Perce Indians. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University.

  • Landsat 7 Science Data Users Handbook. 2003. http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/IAS/handbook/handbook_htmls/chapter6/chapter6.html

  • Langbein LI, Lichtman AJ. 1978. Ecological inference. Beverly Hills: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Lansing S. 1991. Priests and programmers: technologies of power in the engineered landscape of Bali.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Lansing S. 2006. Perfect order: recognizing complexity in Bali. Princeton University Press

  • Lee W. 1999. Why farm property taxes fluctuate. Columbus, OH: Dept. of Agricultural, Environmental and Developmental Economics, The Ohio State University

  • Leung LC, Cao D. 2001. On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision making problem using AHP and Sinarchy. Eur J Oper Res 39–49

  • Lobao L. 1990. Locality and inequality: farm and industry structure and socioeconomic conditions. Albany: State University of New York Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Loucks OL. 1977. Emergence of research on agroecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 8:177–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam G. 1994. Is the metaphor or ecosystem health useful in landscape ecology? Presented at the first international symposium on health and medicine, June. Ottawa. pp 19–23

  • Moore R, Stinner DH, Kline D, Kline E. 1999. Honoring creation and tending the garden: Amish views of biodiversity. In: Posey D, Dutfield G, Plenderleith K (chap. 7), Eds. Human values of biodiversity. Traditional agriculture and soil management, cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity: a complementary contribution to the global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press. Special Volume for the UN Environmental Programme Global Assessment of Indigenous People. London. Intermediate Technologies. pp 305–309

  • Nagendra H, Gadgil M. 1999. Biodiversity assessment at multiple scales: linking remotely sensed data with field information. Proc Natl Acad Sci 96(16):9154–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Odum EP. 1953. Fundamentals of ecology. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: W. B. Saunders

    Google Scholar 

  • Odum EP. 1962. Relationships between structure and function in the ecosystem. Jpn J Ecol 12:108–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Odum EP. 1984. Properties of agroecosystems. In: Lowrance R, Stinner BR, House G, Eds. Agricultural ecosystems. Unifying concepts. New York: John Wiley and Sons. pp 5–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Okey BW. 1996. Systems approaches and properties, and agroecosystem health. J Environ Manage 48:187–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Openshaw S, Taylor PJ. 1981. The modifiable areal unit problem. In: Wrigley N, Bennett R, Eds. Quantitative geography: A British view. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. pp 60–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkes M, Panelli R. 2001. Integrating catchment ecosystems and community health: the value of participatory action research. Ecosyst Health 7(2):85–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patil G, Brooks RP, Myers WL, Rapport J, Taillie C. 2001. Ecosystem health and its measurement at landscape scale: toward the next generation of quantitative assessments. Ecosyst Health 7(4):307–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramanathan R. 2001. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. J Environ Manage 63:27–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rao NH, Rogers PP. 2006. Assessment of agricultural sustainability. Curr Sci 91:439–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Rappaport R. 1984. Pigs for the ancestors: ritual in the ecology of a New Guinea people. Yale University Press.

  • Rapport DJ, Regier HA, Hutchinson TC. 1985. Ecosystem behavior under stress. Am Nat 125:617–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting and resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL. 1994. Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 74:426–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL. 2000. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Pittsburg: RWS Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL, Vargas LG. 1993. Experiments on Rank preservation and reversal in relative measurement. Math Comput Model 17:13–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon S. 1992. Prairie patrimony: family, farming, and community in the Midwest. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer DL, Herricks EE, Kerster HW. 1988. Ecosystem health. Measuring ecosystem health. Environ Manage 12:445–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrader-Frechette KS, McCoy ED. 1993. Methods in ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott JM, Davis FW, Csuti B, Noss R, Butterfield B, Groves C, Anderson H, Caicco S, D’Erchia F, Edwards TC Jr, Ulliman J, Wright RG. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to the protection of biological diversity. Wildl Monogr 123:1–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Smit B, Smithers J. 1994. Sustainable agriculture and agroecosystem health. In: Nielsen NO, Ed. Agroecosystem health. Proceedings of an international workshop. Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph. pp 31–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Smit B, Waltner-Toews D, Rapport D, Wall E, Wicher G, Gwyn E, Wandel J. 1998. Agroecosystem health: analysis and assessment. Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph

    Google Scholar 

  • Soil Science Society of America (SSSA). 1995. Agronomy News. June. p 7

  • Spedding CRW. 1988. An introduction to agricultural systems. In: Dalton GE, Ed. Study of agricultural systems. London: Applied Science Publishers Ltd. pp 3–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegel JM, Bonet M, Yassi A, Molina E, Conception M, Mas P. 2001. Developing ecosystem health indicators in Centro Habana: a community-based approach. Ecosyst Health 7(1):15–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steward J. 1955. Theory of culture change: the methodology of multilinear evolution. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. pp 244

    Google Scholar 

  • Stinner DH, Paoletti MG, Stinner BR. 1989. In search of traditional farm wisdom for a more sustainable agriculture: a study of Amish farming and society. Agric Ecosyst Environ 27:77–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suter GW II. 1993. A critique of ecosystem health concepts and indexes. Environ Toxicol Chem 12:1533–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szaro R, Shapiro B. 1990. Conserving our heritage: America’s biodiversity. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavana M, Banerjee S. 1995. Strategic Assessment Model (SAM) – a multiple criteria decision-support system for evaluation of strategic alternatives. Decis Sci 26(1):119–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban DL, O’Neill RV, Shugart HH Jr. 1987. Landscape ecology: a hierarchical perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns. Bioscience 37:119–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wall E, Smithers J, Wichert G. 1995. A framework for the integration of concepts and research in Agroecosystem health. Discussion paper no. 18. Agroecosystem health project, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada

  • Waltner-Toews D. 1994a. Agroecosystem health care. In: Nielsen NO, Ed. Agroecosystem health: proceedings of an international workshop. Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph. pp 39–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltner-Toews D. 1994b. Ecosystem health: a framework for implementing sustainability in agriculture. In: Nielsen NO, Ed. Agroecosystem health: proceedings of an international workshop. Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph. pp 8–23

  • Wicklum D, Davies RW. 1995. Ecosystem health and integrity? Can J Bot 73:997–1000

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox BA. 2001. Ecosystem health in practice. Emerging areas of application in human and environmental health. Ecosyst Health 7(4):307–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock CE, Strahler AH. 1987. The factor of scale in remote sensing. Remote Sens Environ 21:311–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Jelinski DE, Luck M, Tueller PT. 2000. Multiscale analysis of landscape heterogeneity: scale variance and pattern metrics. Geogr Infor Sci 6:6–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu W, Mage JA. 2001. A review of concepts and criteria for assessing agroecosystem health including a preliminary case study of southern Ontario. Agric Ecosyst Environ 83:215–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang J, Lee H. 1997. An AHP decision model for facility location selection. Facilities 15(9/10):241–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yiridoe EK, Weersink A. 1997. A review and evaluation of agroecosystem health analysis: the role of economics. Agric Syst 55(4):601–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahedi F. 1986. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: a survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces 16(4):96–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC) Research Enhancement Competitive Grants Program, The Ohio State University. We thank our many colleagues and partners who have shared their thoughts and opinions regarding the project at meetings of the Agroecosystems Management Program, OARDC, The Ohio State University. We thank the staff of the Wayne County Auditors Office for their assistance with the parcel data, essential for quantifying farm and land economics in the study area. We especially thank the residents of the study area, whose willingness to share their views and information about their land and their families made this study possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Entomology, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, 44691, USA

    Krishna Prasad Vadrevu, Ben Stinner, Deb Stinner & Casey Hoy

  2. Department of Horticulture and Crop Sciences, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, 44691, USA

    John Cardina

  3. Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 43210, USA

    Fred Hitzhusen & Isaac Bayoh

  4. Department of Human and Community Resource Development, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, 44691, USA

    Richard Moore

  5. Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 43210, USA

    Jason Parker

  6. Agroecosystems Management Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, 1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, Ohio, 44691-4096, USA

    Krishna Prasad Vadrevu, John Cardina, Fred Hitzhusen, Isaac Bayoh, Richard Moore, Jason Parker, Ben Stinner, Deb Stinner & Casey Hoy

Authors
  1. Krishna Prasad Vadrevu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Cardina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fred Hitzhusen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Isaac Bayoh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Richard Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jason Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ben Stinner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Deb Stinner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Casey Hoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Casey Hoy.

Additional information

†Dr. Ben Stinner is deceased

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(PDF 94 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vadrevu, K.P., Cardina, J., Hitzhusen, F. et al. Case Study of an Integrated Framework for Quantifying Agroecosystem Health. Ecosystems 11, 283–306 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-007-9122-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-007-9122-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation