# DEXi-Dairy: an ex post multicriteria tool to assess the sustainability of dairy production systems in various European regions

Aurelie Wilfart, Vincent Baillet, Lorraine Balaine, Xabier Díaz de Otálora, Federico Dragoni, Dominika Joanna Krol, Joanna Frątczak-Müller, Anna Rychla, Divina Gracia P. Rodriguez, James Breen, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Aurelie Wilfart, Vincent Baillet, Lorraine Balaine, Xabier Díaz de Otálora, Federico Dragoni, et al.: DEXi-Dairy: an ex post multicriteria tool to assess the sustainability of dairy production systems in various European regions. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2023, 43 (6), pp.82. 10.1007/s13593-023-00935-3. doi:10.1007/s13593-023-00935-3

HAL Id: hal-04353871

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04353871

Submitted on 19 Dec 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# DEXi-Dairy: an ex post multicriteria tool to assess the sustainability of dairy production systems in various European regions

Aurelie Wilfart¹ Ⓒ · Vincent Baillet¹ · Lorraine Balaine² · Xabier Díaz de Otálora³,⁴ · Federico Dragoni³ ·

Dominika Joanna Krol⁵ · Joanna Frączak-Müller⁶ · Anna Rychła⁷ · Divina Gracia P. Rodriguez⁸ · James Breen⁹ ·

Vasileios Anestis¹⁰ · Cathal Buckley² · Habtamu Alem⁸ · Wilfried Winiwarter⁷,¹¹ · Nouraya Akkal-Corfini¹ ·

Barbara Amon³,⁷

Accepted: 17 November 2023

© The Author(s) 2023

## Abstract

Growing awareness of global challenges and increasing pressures on the farming sector, including the urgent requirement to rapidly cut greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, emphasize the need for sustainable production, which is particularly relevant for dairy production systems. Comparing dairy production systems across the three sustainability dimensions is a considerable challenge, notably due to the heterogeneity of production conditions in Europe. To overcome this, we developed an ex post multicriteria assessment tool that adopts a holistic approach across the three sustainability dimensions. This tool is based on the DEXi framework, which associates a hierarchical decision model with an expert perspective and follows a tree shaped structure; thus, we called it the DEXi-Dairy tool. For each dimension of sustainability, qualitative attributes were defined and organized in themes, sub-themes, and indicators. Their choice was guided by three objectives: (i) better describe main challenges faced by European dairy production systems, (ii) point out synergies and trade-offs across sustainability dimensions, and (iii) contribute to the identification of GHG mitigation strategies at the farm level. Qualitative scales for each theme, sub-theme, and indicator were defined together with weighting factors used to aggregate each level of the tree. Based on selected indicators, a list of farm data requirements was developed to populate the sustainability tree. The model was then tested on seven case study farms distributed across Europe. DEXi-Dairy presents a qualitative method that allows for the comparison of different inputs and the evaluation of the three sustainability dimensions in an integrated manner. By assessing synergies and trade-offs across sustainability dimensions, DEXi-Dairy is able to reflect the heterogeneity of dairy production systems. Results indicate that, while trade-offs occasionally exist among respective selected sub-themes, certain farming systems tend to achieve a higher sustainability score than others and hence could serve as benchmarks for further analyses.

**Keywords** Dairy systems · DEXi · Decision support · Multicriteria assessment · Participative framework · Sustainability indicators · Systems and needs approach

## 1 Introduction

With a global population set to exceed 9 billion people by 2050, food production will need to continue expanding within the limitations of increasing natural resource scarcity and challenges posed by climate change (Opio et al. 2013). Global demand for milk is forecasted to grow at a rate of 1.1 percent per year in the coming decades (Opio et al. 2013). However, the dairy sector is a large contributor to global gaseous emissions accounting for approximately 30 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the livestock sector (4.6 gigatons CO₂-eq, Opio et al. (2013)).

As requested by the French National Research Agency (Agence Nationale de la Recherche), a CC-BY 4.0 public copyright license has been applied by the authors to the present document and will be applied to all subsequent versions up to the Author Accepted Manuscript arising from this submission, in accordance with the grant's open access conditions (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Extended author information available on the last page of the article
In this context, dairy production faces sustainability challenges, such as an increasingly competitive global market and economic viability, high price volatility, and animal welfare concerns (Gerber et al. 2013), as well as growing social pressure on farmers (Dubois 2016). It is therefore necessary to pay greater attention to resolving sustainability issues. In that regard, it is essential to identify farming practices and technologies that can lead to desired sustainability outcomes. This requires a robust definition of agricultural sustainability, as well as holistic assessment tools able to account for the wide diversity of dairy production systems (DPSs) (Diaz de Otálora et al. 2022) across Europe and globally while maintaining flexibility to avoid favoring certain systems over others.

Over the years, the literature has reached consensus over the three dimensions of the sustainability concept (i.e., economic, environmental, and social). This has contributed to a clearer definition of sustainable agriculture, such as the one proposed by Lewandowski et al. (1999), and adopted in this article, namely, “management and utilisation of the agricultural ecosystem in a way that maintains its biological diversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality, and ability to function, so that it can fulfil – today and in the future – significant ecological, economic and social functions at the local, national and global levels and does not harm other ecosystems” (page 185). Despite advancements in the literature to develop integrated methods for sustainability assessment (FAO 2014; Marchand et al. 2014; Grenz et al. 2009; Zahm et al. 2008), complexity and difficulties in assessing and measuring farm sustainability are still a challenge (Diaz de Otálora et al. 2021; Soulé et al. 2021). Due to the wide scope of the sustainability concept, the combined appraisal of various sustainability aspects is needed. This requires specific methodological approaches, data, and expertise from different scientific fields (Clay et al. 2020; Gésan-Guiziou et al. 2020). When evaluating DPSs, most of the studies have focused mainly on one sustainability dimension (Segerkvist et al. 2020; Lebacq et al. 2013) which does not provide a holistic view of dairy farm sustainability. In fact, some studies examined either economic sustainability (e.g., Borawski et al. (2020)), environmental sustainability (e.g., Acosta-Alba et al. (2012)), or social sustainability (e.g., Boogaard et al. (2011)), while few studies looked at the overall sustainability of dairy farms (Meul et al. 2008; Bélanger et al. 2015) and even fewer with a specific focus on the sustainability of GHG reduction practices. Consideration of only one dimension does not display the potential trade-offs and synergies that could occur across the multiple dimensions (Clay et al. 2020) and can thus lead to conclusions that would negatively affect the two others. Additionally, so far, the social dimension has been underrepresented in sustainability assessments and, more generally, in the literature (Lebacq et al. 2013). Most of the time, studies

addressing social sustainability only refer to on-farm working conditions (Chopin et al. 2021) and/or animal welfare (Tallentire et al. 2019) and are seldom farmer centered. This highlights the need to rebalance the three dimensions in our understanding and application of the sustainability concept.

The challenge of assessing agricultural sustainability is to represent the many processes involved by comprehensively covering as many time and space scales as possible (Laborte et al. 2007; Lairez et al. 2015). Therefore, assessments have to be multidisciplinary and multifaceted, which requires an approach based on scientific knowledge and the use of objective indicators (Marchand 2010). To identify key factors affecting the sustainability of DPSs and handle multidimensional constraints, multicriteria assessments (MCA) are seen as suitable methodological tools due to their holistic and iterative approach (Craheix et al. 2015; Lairez et al. 2015; Angevin et al. 2017). MCAs decompose problems into a series of quantitative or qualitative indicators to integrate objective measurements and value judgments into decision-making. In this way, they make subjectivity explicit and manageable through organized inputs, allowing groups or individuals to explore complex questions of interest and take more informed decisions (Belton and Stewart 2002). To evaluate themes and sub-themes of a different nature and their interactions, MCAs may require transformations of the different indicators under study through various steps, including weighting and aggregation. The number of themes and sub-themes and how they are transformed can vary by MCA methodology and context, but it is often recommended to organize them hierarchically from general to specific considerations (Lairez et al. 2015).

In this article, we contribute to the literature by developing an ex post MCA model to evaluate the sustainability of DPSs with equal consideration of the three sustainability dimensions. Our model is based on the DEX methodology implemented in the DEXi software (Bohanec 2020) and will be hereinafter referred to as DEXi-Dairy. We focus specifically on the DEX MCA methodology to build our model because: (i) It follows a participative and multidisciplinary approach and uses a wide panel of expertise to facilitate the consideration of context specificities and system issues (Angevin et al. 2017; Pelzer et al. 2012) and (ii) it is able to transform quantitative into qualitative data, thereby allowing for their aggregation into simple qualitative scores. It also allows for trade-offs between accuracy of input variables and a large number of assessed impacts, thus facilitating the design and evaluation of complex systems, and (iii) it is adaptable and has the capacity to depict farm heterogeneity. Furthermore, the DEX method has been widely applied to develop multi-attribute decision-making models in different agricultural sectors as a means to face multidimensional problems in sustainability

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
assessments. For instance, several models assessing sustainability in agri-food systems and based on the DEX methodology were created for cropping systems (Sadok et al. 2009; Bohanec et al. 2008; Colomb et al. 2013; Craheix et al. 2012; Pelzer et al. 2012; Vasileiadis et al. 2013), viticulture systems (Metral et al. 2015), orchards systems (Mouron et al. 2012), vegetable cropping systems (Rezaei et al. 2018), and aquaculture systems (Le Féon et al. 2021).

The objective of this article is first to present the method followed to build the new DEX-based model for DPSs, i.e., the DEXi-Dairy model, and then describe it in depth. Supporting methodological documents (including sustainability indicator handbook, data collection templates and guide) are available in a public repository (https://entrepot.recherche.data.gouv.fr/dataverse/Eragas_Milkey) to allow practitioners to use, replicate, and expand our model. The DEXi-Dairy model can be used by researchers, agricultural advisers, and technicians to assess the sustainability of any specialized dairy farm. Additionally, it can be used to test the effect of various GHG mitigation options on the three sustainability dimensions for European DPSs. Overall, this highlights the wide range of applications of the DEXi-Dairy model, including the analysis of potential sustainability enhancing solutions before encouraging their farm-level uptake or the comparison of sustainability performance across multiple DPSs. To demonstrate its use, we test the model with data from seven farms distributed across Europe.

# 2 Materials and methods

## 2.1 DEX method background

DEXi is a software dealing with multi-attribute decision-making. Its objective is to help design qualitative multi-attribute decision models by supporting interactive and participative development. The software displays and assesses the different systems selected. The DEXi software breaks down a decision problem into several sub-problems, which are easier to solve than the primary one (Bohanec 2020). It associates a hierarchical decision model with an expert perspective based on qualitative attributes. The attribute values are discrete and expressed with qualitative statements such as “low, medium, high” rather than numbers (Craheix et al. 2015). These attributes are organized in a tree shaped structure, building dependencies between attributes of different levels. Each decision is represented by a set of attributes that are assessed individually and then aggregated by the model up to the next levels. For the sake of clarity, each dimension (environmental, economic, or social) is divided into themes (third level), further divided into sub-themes (intermediary level), which are themselves assessed by indicators (lowest level). Indicators are directly assessed by the users through models (complex or operational) or direct measures (Lairez et al. 2015). In this way, each dimension gathers several themes, and their respective sub-themes and

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Organization of a decision rule-based, hierarchical multi-attribute model for a theoretical example of one theme (adapted from Bohanec (2020 and Craheix et al. (2015)) with $X_{I,n}$, list of inputs to</figcaption></figure>

calculate the indicators; $X_{I,n}$, indicators; F(X,Y): the utility function; $Y_{I,n}$, sub-themes; and $Z_{I,n}$, themes. Between each level, a weight in percentage is attributed to each sub-attribute
indicators (Fig. 1) except for the social dimension which
was only composed of themes and indicators in this article.

A five-step conceptual framework for building a DEXi model was proposed by Craheix et al. (2015) and recently refined by Le Feon et al. (2021):

i) First, an analysis and design plan is established. It constitutes one of the most important steps of the MCA model, where assessment boundaries, objectives, actors, and research institutes involved are thoroughly defined (Bohanec 2020).

ii) In the second step, a hierarchical tree is built. It can be done with two different approaches, i.e., top-down and bottom-up. In the top-down approach, the design starts from the root of the tree (the upper part: the “dimension” level) to the leaves (the lowest part: the “indicator” level). The tree is built by a panel of expert based on the objectives of the assessment and the context of the targeted system defined in step (i). Alternatively, the bottom-up approach starts from the selection and design of indicators and aggregates them to the superior levels (sub-themes, themes, and then dimensions). This approach is participative, involving strong interactions among different stakeholders

iii) Next, indicators have to be selected and/or designed for each sub-theme. The quantitative indicators, based on data collection, calculation, or model estimations, are transformed into qualitative values (named scales), such as “high, medium, low” (Fig. 1). In the DEX methodology, this step is named “scaling” (Bohanec 2020). It is usually done using threshold values from the academic and policy literature. Since these thresholds highly influence the qualitative value taken by indicators, one of the main challenges is to find the best compromise between result accuracy and simplicity of model use (Craheix et al. 2015). It is not recommended to associate too many indicators with too many qualitative scales. For each indicator, the number of classes on the scales can go up to seven, but it is advised to keep this number as low as possible. It is then recommended to increase the number of classes in the superior levels (Bohanec 2020).

iv) The next step is the parametrization process, i.e., building the decision rules between lower levels (X,Y) and their corresponding upper levels (Y, Z) (Fig. 1). This is presented as a key step in the DEX methodology, where the attributes are aggregated to the next attribute level. The aggregation is done by a utility function (F(X,Y)) and a weighting procedure (Fig. 1). Concretely, a weight is attributed to each attribute, and a utility function is defined. This function takes the shape of a lookup table using “IF-THEN” decision rules which are set to fix the value of an aggregated attribute depending on the value of the immediate descendant attributes (e.g., IF indi-

cator $X_1$ is “high” AND indicator $X_2$ is “low” THEN sub-theme $Y_1$ is “medium”). The maximum number of indicators to aggregate is four in the DEXi software, but it is advised not to combine more than three indicators (Bohanec 2020).

v) The last step consists on the evaluation and interpretation of the results.

The development of DEXi-Dairy is detailed in the next sections.

## 2.2 Development of the DEXi-Dairy model

Figure 2 details the framework used to develop the DEXi-Dairy model. It presents the different steps followed in this study and situates them in relation to the general DEX method described in Section 2.1.

### 2.2.1 Definition of the working groups

The DEXi-Dairy hierarchical tree was created following a bottom-up approach through eighteen participative workshops. Different researchers and agricultural advisers in dairy production, GHG emissions, economy, sociology, and environmental sciences were involved in these workshops. They were selected from a wider consortium based on their expertise. Three groups were defined to work on each specific dimension of the dairy sustainability assessment (Fig. 2, (1)). Each group was composed of 8–12 experts; 3 of them attended all the workshops to check the overall consistency of the tree. The groups defined indicators, sub-themes, and themes for each dimension and developed the parameters used to connect them, as described in more detail below. At each workshop and for each dimension, the latest version of the tree was presented. Discussions on potential modifications were held, until an agreement was reached. Then, objectives for the next workshop were determined.

### 2.2.2 Definition of the indicator library

Based on the literature and previous project reports, notably from the IDEA, MASK, and SIMTAP projects (Bergez 2013; Le Féon et al. 2021; Zahm et al. 2008), an initial list of indicators was established for the environmental and economic dimensions. Then, a first version of the hierarchical tree was built taking into account the list of indicators, their inputs, methods, and assessment scales, as well as the study's objectives (Fig. 2, (2)). This preliminary hierarchical tree was proposed to the working groups for discussion. Specifically as follows.

Environmental indicators were retrieved from technical reports ((Koch and Salou 2015; Pellerin et al. 2013)) and the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology (ISO

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Framework to design the DEXi-Dairy model: (1) to (9) refer to the different steps followed to design DEXi-Dairy, while the boxes and numbers in red correspond to the conceptual framework proposed by Craheix et al. (2015) and adapted by Le Feon et al. (2021)</figcaption></figure>

2006). LCA was chosen to be consistent with the recommendations of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (FAO 2016) and the European Union (EU) (European commission 2013) concerning the environmental impacts of livestock production systems. The approach was then completed by the BIOTEX method, proposed by Manneville et al. (2014), to cover impacts on biodiversity.

Economic indicators were retrieved from a combination of sources including EU Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) reports and technical documents (from the European Commission (European Commission 2018b, a, 2020) and the Teagasc National Farm Survey (NFS) 2019 sustainability report (Buckley and Donnellan 2020).

In the social dimension, indicators were adapted from the results of qualitative research and a literature analysis. Firstly, a literature review regarding the social sustainability of agricultural production systems was conducted to define the theoretical framework of the assessment. As a consequence, the themes were determined using Parsons' social system theory (Turner 1991), and indicators were derived from Maslow's concept of needs (Maslow 1943). Needs considered in this study included the following: (1) physiological and security needs, (2) social needs, and (3) esteem and self-actualization needs. Secondly, after selecting the theoretical concepts to be included in the social branch (Baillet et al. 2022a), 15 unstructured in-depth interviews were carried out with farmers from Norway, Poland, and Ireland during fall 2021. These were based on a methodology

focused on discovering theory through data, firstly published by Glaser and Strauss (1967) in a book entitled *The discovery of Grounded Theory* and well-established in social sciences. The aim was to examine what selected concepts entailed for farmers and identify statements that could represent them. The grounded theory is based on the assumptions that social reality is best understood by the actors involved in it, and the researcher goes into the field without pre-conceptualized categories of analysis and indicators. Purposive sampling was conducted for this part of the research. Specifically, participating farms had to be family owned and operated and specialized in milk production, with more than two-thirds of their standard output coming from the dairy enterprise (Eurostat 2022). In twelve cases, the interviews were conducted with the main owner of the farm. In three cases, married couples managing the farm participated in the interviews. Three women and twelve men participated in the interviews. According to the grounded theory, research material was collected as part of the interviews and observations in subsequent interactions. After conducting the interviews, the interviewers prepared their summaries, and then the team of sociologists started a series of workshops to develop the content of the indicators. The analytical process of the data collected during the interviews included data reduction, data display, and the derivation/confirmation of conclusions (Silverman 2016). By applying a comparative method covering all in-depth interviews, categories of analysis were generated. In conjunction with the established social framework, affirmative statements were
developed and became the basis for the social questionnaire implemented on case study farms. Statements were used to populate the indicators of the social branch. Notably, they measure farmers' level of (dis)agreement with various social issues identified in the interviews on 5-point Likert scales. They were structured based on Maslow's concept of needs (Maslow 1943) to generate three social sustainability indicator indexes. Continuous values taken by the indexes were obtained by averaging responses to the set of statements grouped under each of these three need categories.

After indicator identification, the list of all sustainability indicators was refined and restructured by each working group through successive review workshops based on the relevance of each indicator/sub-theme/theme for the goal pursued by the MCA (Fig. 2, (3)). For each dimension, working groups were asked the following questions: (i) “Are the indicators/sub-themes/themes relevant for assessing DPSs and sensitive to the implementation of GHG mitigation options?”. If deemed relevant, indicators/sub-themes/themes were classified into “major issue,” “important,” and “not so important,” with two follow-up questions: (ii) “Are there any additional indicators missing?” and (iii) “do the names need to be refined?”. After the first workshop, two series of additional questions were added: first, on the tree structure, “Do we validate the hierarchical connections among indicators, sub-themes, and themes?”, and second, on the definition of the indicators, (i) “Are the data, scales, and thresholds easily available for this indicator?” and (iii) “Is the indicator likely to be sensitive to differences among DPSs?”. Then, each branch of the tree was modified accordingly. At the end of the iterative review process, the final tree was validated by all project partners (Fig. 2, (4)).

### 2.2.3 Definition of number of classes and scales

In order to transform quantitative indicators into qualitative ones (scaling procedure from “(very)low” to “(very)high” (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, (5))), the number of classes and lower and upper bounds of each class were determined. Although the number of scales per indicator can go up to seven, we followed recommendations to have as few as possible (Bohanec 2020). In DEXi-Dairy, continuously defined environmental indicators had between three and five classes, economic indicators had four classes, and social indicators had tree classes. Of all the sustainability indicators used in this study, only one was qualitative, i.e., participation in an agri-environmental scheme (environmental dimension). For this indicator, two classes were used in accordance to its dichotomous nature. As for the upper levels of the tree (i.e., sub-themes, themes, and dimensions), the number of classes was set to the minimum, as suggested by Craheix et al. (2015). However, it was at least as high as the number of classes of their corresponding lower levels, i.e., the number of classes of

sub-themes $Y_1$ cannot be less than the number of classes of the indicators $X_1, X_2$, and $X_3$ (Fig. 1). Following the recommendations of Carpani et al. (2012), random values were attributed to the indicators using the Monte-Carlo method, and different numbers of classes were assigned to their upper levels. The distribution of random scenarios was observed, and then the best combination of classes was assigned for the hierarchical tree through observation plots and normality tests of Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS).

By nature, indicator classes are ordered and bounded by threshold values, derived from literature-based (also called reference values, as defined by Lebacq et al. (2013) and Acosta-Alba et al. (2012)) or data-driven Before describing the choice of lower and upper bounds in detail; it is worthwhile to mention that in the context of this research, DEXi-Dairy was implemented to compare farms representative of key national production systems from different European countries. As underlined by Le Féon et al. (2021), comparing production systems at European level requires the use of common scales even if sustainability performance, in particular in the economic and social branches, can differ across regions. Hence, the choice was made to develop common, non-country specific scales to compare performance among case study farms. Due to the flexibility and adaptability of the DEXi-Dairy tool, indicator scales (including number of classes and/or threshold values) could be adjusted to reflect more specific national or regional conditions in future work. Specifically, our thresholds were defined using a three-step approach. In the first step, reference values were selected for all sustainability indicators. For the environmental indicators, these were derived from the literature, except for one indicator (percentage of cultivated area irrigated). In this latter case, reference values were defined using the data collected on case study farms. For most economic indicators, reference values were based on the distribution of data of specialized dairy farms from the EU FADN public database, where information from all EU Member States was used for the years 2016–2018 (European Commission 2019). For two of the economic indicators (loan repayments per farm gross margin and ratio of dairy and dairy animal sales to total sales), the necessary data to scale them through the EU FADN was not available. In such cases, reference values were defined using the data collected on case study farms. As for the social indicators, reference values were defined using cut-off values determined through expert opinion. Notably, because these indicators were obtained by averaging responses over 5-point Likert scales, where points took values between 1 and 5, two cutoff values were chosen as follows: 1.5 and 3.5. In the second step, the suitability of selected reference values to determine threshold values was assessed by project partners. Based on expert opinion and if/where needed to better reflect the specificities of national production systems, reference values were adjusted to form

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
suitable thresholds. In the third step, the ability of selected threshold values to discriminate farms against each other was tested by populating the DEXi-Dairy model with case study data. A final adjustment to threshold values was made if/where needed to better differentiate farms based on their sustainability performance.

Please note that the list of references for reference values is provided in supplementary material A1. Additionally, more detail about indicator definitions, formulas, and scales (including final threshold values) is available in Baillet et al. (2022a).

### 2.2.4 DEXi-Dairy parametrization

To build decision rules among levels of the DEXi-Dairy tree in the aggregation step, it was necessary to define weights and utility functions. Weights (aggregation factors) were determined by project partners through online surveys (Fig. 2, (6)) and then adjusted through an optimization process. In a first step related to the elicitation of the survey weights, at least two participants per partner insti- tute responded to the surveys, where they were individually asked to weight tree nodes against each other at each hier- archical level. Weights had to add up to 100% at each level. When the pool of obtained weights were not too divergent, the mean value was selected to be used in the final DEXi- Dairy tool. Conversely, when the weights were divergent, a workshop in each working group was carried out in order to find an agreement over the most suitable value, as sug- gested by Le Féon et al. (2021). In a second step related to the optimization process, for each aggregation node, the utility functions were calculated by the DEXi software using a multiple linear regression formula (y = ax + b), where the survey weights of each indicator from the previous level (X1, X2, X3 or Y1, Y2) and the number of classes of the following level (Y1 or Z1) were used to calculate a and b (Fig. 1). Then, the DEXi software rounded up the value of y by adjusting the weights of each indicator from the pre- vious level (X1, ...). We used these adjusted weights pro- posed by the model to generate all the utility functions of the DEXI-Dairy model. The generated matrix was then exported and qualitative classes were transformed into quantitative classes. The mean of each aggregation rule was calculated and ranked. The matrix was then checked line by line for consistency and corrected if the results deviated from expert knowledge as suggested by Le Féon et al. (2021) and Soulé et al. (2023) (Fig. 2, (7)).

### 2.2.5 Data collection

Twelve case study farms were identified by project partners to represent key national dairy production systems in Ire- land, Germany, Greece, France, Norway, and Poland. To

participate in this study, farms had to be family owned and operated, and specialized in milk production. While the environmental and economic data could be collected with the help of multiple farm workers, the farm's owner and main decision-maker was to answer the social survey. Par- ticipation in the study was voluntary and farmers' consent was obtained at the beginning of the data collection process. The data collection started in the fall of 2021 and was ini- tially concerned with obtaining environmental and economic data for the 2020 accounting year. It ended with the social study carried out in February and March 2022. The data was collected by data recorders from project partner institutes through farm visits and phone interviews. In total, the data collection process took about three hours per farm.

To help data recorders in the collection process, sup- port tools were created, including four data templates in Excel format for the environmental and economic farm data (Fig. 2, (8)) (Baillet et al. 2022b), a data collection guide with a detailed description of all necessary environmental and economic information (Baillet et al. 2022c), and a social questionnaire. The first data template was dedicated to gen- eral farm information (infrastructure, manure management, water and energy consumption), crop production (crop man- agement sequence of arable crops and grassland), and bio- diversity (habitat diversity). The second template included information regarding dairy herd management practices (herd inventory, diets, milk production, and manure man- agement) and the description of the milking parlor. The third template gathered beef herd management practices. As for the economic data, a specific template was created includ- ing information regarding labor, costs, earnings from crop and livestock production, animal product sales and services, other gainful activities, and subsidies. The social question- naire consisted of eight parts, with seven parts containing statements about the fulfilment of farmers' needs related to farm work (job security, physical strain, risk of accidents, work support, financial security, social contacts at work, job satisfaction, career plans, investments) and to life outside of the farm (free time, access to services and institutions, social contacts in private life, integration into local community, loneliness, self-actualization), and a part with socio-demo- graphic characteristics. Data recorders were trained through a series of three workshops regarding the collection of envi- ronmental and economic data and the principles of social research.

### 2.2.6 Description of the case studies

Seven contrasted case studies are presented in this study (Table 1) to demonstrate the application of the DEXi-Dairy tool. These case studies represented a wide range of cli- matic conditions (average temperatures between 3 and 12 °C, and annual precipitations from 490 up to 1614 mm),
<table><caption>**Table 1** Mean characteristics of the case study farms in the four studied countries (FR France, IR Ireland, DE Germany, NO Norway)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>FR<sub>01</sub></th><th>FR<sub>02</sub></th><th>DE<sub>01</sub></th><th>DE<sub>02</sub></th><th>IR<sub>01</sub></th><th>IR<sub>02</sub></th><th>NO<sub>01</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mean temperature in 2020 (°C)</td><td>12.14</td><td>11.2</td><td>11.1</td><td>11.02</td><td>10.26</td><td>9.86</td><td>3.05</td></tr><tr><td>Max temperature in 2020 (°C)</td><td>16.15</td><td>16.36</td><td>15.42</td><td>15.52</td><td>13.51</td><td>13.65</td><td>5.86</td></tr><tr><td>Min temperature in 2020 (°C)</td><td>8.2</td><td>6.08</td><td>6.83</td><td>6.58</td><td>7.06</td><td>6.12</td><td>0.25</td></tr><tr><td>Total precipitation in 2020 (mm)</td><td>752.83</td><td>753.19</td><td>673.81</td><td>493.64</td><td>1493.93</td><td>1116.5</td><td>1614.79</td></tr><tr><td>Utilized agricultural area (UAA) (ha)</td><td>103.5</td><td>161</td><td>71</td><td>230</td><td>89</td><td>87</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>Dairy herd size (cows)</td><td>75</td><td>73</td><td>138</td><td>110</td><td>125</td><td>185</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Total livestock units (LU)</td><td>130.5</td><td>124.2</td><td>182.6</td><td>125.8</td><td>179.5</td><td>234.5</td><td>38.7</td></tr><tr><td>Farm stocking rate (LU.ha<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>1.26</td><td>0.77</td><td>2.57</td><td>0.55</td><td>2.02</td><td>2.70</td><td>1.29</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of cropland to UAA (%)</td><td>61.2</td><td>5.4</td><td>45.1</td><td>28.6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of grassland to UAA (%)</td><td>38.8</td><td>94.6</td><td>54.9</td><td>71.7</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>90</td></tr><tr><td>Mineral nitrogen (N) on cropland (kg N.ha<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>118.2</td><td>12.2</td><td>32.9</td><td>0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Organic N on cropland (kg N.ha<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>36.8</td><td>115.7</td><td>48.2</td><td>25.8</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Mineral N on grassland (kg N.ha<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>156.6</td><td>6.9</td><td>42.3</td><td>0</td><td>58.1</td><td>42.8</td><td>109.3</td></tr><tr><td>Organic N on grassland (kg N.ha<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>35.0</td><td>32.6</td><td>13.3</td><td>30.0</td><td>59.4</td><td>156.3</td><td>325.0</td></tr><tr><td>Milk yield per cow (l.cow<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>9567</td><td>5433</td><td>10,870</td><td>7127</td><td>6012</td><td>5362</td><td>7833</td></tr><tr><td>Additional farming enterprise(s)<sup>a</sup></td><td>B</td><td>A</td><td>-</td><td>A</td><td>B and CF</td><td>-</td><td>B and CF</td></tr><tr><td>Length of calving season (weeks)</td><td>40</td><td>52</td><td>52</td><td>52</td><td>13</td><td>11</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Length of grazing season, dairy cows (days)</td><td>61</td><td>206</td><td>0</td><td>43</td><td>239</td><td>259</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>Organic farming (Y/N)</td><td>N</td><td>N</td><td>N</td><td>O</td><td>N</td><td>N</td><td>N</td></tr></tbody></table>

herd size (from 24 to 185 dairy cows), and length of grazing season (from 0 to 259 days). As for the grassland area, it varied from 38.8 to 100% of the total utilized agricultural area (UAA). A description of selected farms is provided in Table 4 and is completed in Balaine et al. (2023)¹. They were located in the North (FR<sub>01</sub>) and South-East (FR<sub>02</sub>) for the French case studies, in the North-West (DE<sub>01</sub>) and North-East (DE<sub>02</sub>) for the German case studies, in the South (IR<sub>01</sub>) and West (IR<sub>02</sub>) for the Irish case studies, and finally in the Nordland region (NO<sub>01</sub>) for the Norwegian case study. At the time of the study, the main farm owners were men in six out seven case studies. Farmers were aged 37 to 69, mostly with formal agricultural education (six out of seven farms). In two cases, the main farm holder had an off-farm job or received a pension.

### 2.2.7 Indicator calculation

Most of the environmental indicators are based on the LCA methodology according to the ISO standards (ISO 2006). The system boundaries considered in this study were from cradle to DPS gate and included the production of capital goods (infrastructure and equipment), the production of chemicals such as fertilizers, the production of feeds and concentrates, farm operations (including local emissions of pollutants), the use of energy sources, and transportation. The functional unit was 1 kg of fat-protein-corrected milk (FPCM, 4% fat and 3.3% protein as recommended

by Koch and Salou (2015)). Concerning the life cycle inventories (LCIs), on-farm emission calculations were based on guidelines proposed by Koch and Salou (2015), as implemented in the MEANS IN-OUT online platform (https://pfmeans.inra.fr/means/login.jsp, Auberger et al. (2018)). Emission factors were adapted for each country if relevant. Nitrate leaching was calculated according to the INDIGO® v3 method (Bockstaller et al. 2022). The LCAs at farm scale were performed for each case study farms using the Simapro 9.3.0.3 software. The calculation of impact categories were based on ILCD 2011 Midpoints indicators for climate change and water resource depletion (JRC 2012), CML-IA baseline v3.05 for eutrophication and acidification (Guinee et al. 2002), and CED 1.11 for total energy demand (Frischknecht et al. 2015), as implemented in the Simapro software. The background data came from the Ecoalim database (Wilfart et al. 2016) for feed ingredients, from the Agribalyse database® for agricultural operations, machinery, and inputs, and from ecoinvent v3.8® for other background data (national energy mix, transportation and infrastructure). For the biodiversity indicators, the Shannon Index (Shannon 1948), adapted from Di Gregorio and Jansen (2000), Herzog et al. (2013), and Walz (2011), was used to assess habitat diversity. Two other indicators (grassland management and participation in an agri-environmental scheme) were adapted from indicators proposed by Manneville et al. (2014).

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<footnote><sup>a</sup>B for beef, A for arable, CF for commercial forestry</footnote>
In the economic dimension, indicator formulas were defined using EU FADN specification documents (European Commission 2020). For each case study, the farm data was directly used to populate the formulas.

Concerning the social indicators, the theoretical concepts were translated into questions available in the social questionnaire. They consisted of 23 affirmative sentences referring to the three categories of indicators; each of which was analyzed concerning the sustainability of farm work and life outside of farming. Responses to statements were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, and strongly agree. Each social indicator was obtained by averaging farmers' responses to the statements referring to that specific indicator and theme.

A detailed description of the values taken by each indicator is available in Balaine et al. (2023).

## 3 Results and discussion

The method previously described was used to build the DEXi-Dairy tree, which is divided into three main branches related to the three sustainability dimensions. DEXi-Dairy considered each sustainability dimension equally (weighting factors of 33.3% each) in order to capture the whole concept of sustainability. Figure 3 describes the structure of the DEXi-Dairy model including the weighting factors at each node. To describe the complexity and characteristics of DPSs, the model gathered 40

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** DEXi-Dairy tree. Green boxes represent the environmental dimension, orange boxes represent the economic dimension, and the purple boxes represent the social dimension. The red boxes indicate the weight of the attributes in percentage</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
indicators, including 22, 12, and 6 indicators for the envi-
ronmental, economic, and social branches, respectively. A
summary of each branch (including attributes, weighting
factors, scales, thresholds, and units) is provided in sup-
plementary material A1. The whole description is avail-
able in Baillet et al. (2022a).

**3.1 Application to case studies**

For each case study, qualitative scores were obtained at each
level of the sustainability tree by populating the DEXi-Dairy
model with values calculated for each indicator. The over-
all sustainability scores were obtained through the process
of aggregation and are reported in Fig. 4. Three groups of
farms can be identified, with sustainability scores ranging
from low to medium for NO₀₁; through medium for FR₀₁ and
FR₀₂; and up to medium to high for IR₀₁, IR₀₂, DE₀₁, and
DE₀₂. Nevertheless, farms with identical scores for the over-
all sustainability did not perform equally across the three
sustainability dimensions. Even though IR₀₁, IR₀₂, and DE₀₁
achieved medium to high scores in the environmental and
economic assessments, their medium values for social sus-
tainability could not be compensated. Similarly, DE₀₂ had a
medium score for environmental sustainability, which was
not compensated by its medium to high scores for the two

other dimensions. As expected, FR₀₁ and FR₀₂ obtained a
medium sustainability score since the scores for each sus-
tainability dimension were medium, except for FR₀₁'s eco-
nomic dimension for which the score was medium to high.
NO₀₁ obtained the lowest sustainability score of all case
studies, i.e., low to medium, remaining on the lower end for
each of the three dimensions (low to medium, medium, and
low to medium for the environmental, economic, and social
dimensions, respectively).

Tables 2, 3, and 4 provided the environmental, economic, and social profiles of case studies. The case studies differed strongly within their environmental performance, even for a same dimension score (Table 2). For the medium to high group (IR₀₁, IR₀₂, and DE₀₁), IR₀₂ had a high score for the themes “best dairy herd management practices,” “environmental quality,” and “abiotic resources conservation” but a medium score for the theme “biodiversity conservation.” IR₀₁ shared similarities with IR₀₂, except for the theme “adopting best dairy herd management practices” for which it achieved a medium score. DE₀₁ presented a similar pattern as IR₀₂, but differences occurred at the sub-theme level “soil quality” and “reducing pesticide use” for which the scores were low to medium but were compensated by a medium to high score in “feed efficiency.”

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Sustainability score for each case study using the DEXi-Dairy model (FR France, IE Ireland, DE Germany, NO Norway). Triangles correspond to the individual score for each dimension</figcaption></figure>

of sustainability and the diagram to the overall sustainability score
of each case study. The gradient of color is distributed as follows:

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 2** Assessment of the environmental branch for each case study using the DEXi-Dairy model. (FR: France, DE: Germany, IR: Ireland, NO: Norway). The gradient of colour is distributed as follow from dark red for very low score to dark green for very high score</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Attributes</th><th colspan="7">Case Studies</th></tr><tr><th>FR<sub>01</sub></th><th>FR<sub>02</sub></th><th>DE<sub>01</sub></th><th>DE<sub>02</sub></th><th>IR<sub>01</sub></th><th>IR<sub>02</sub></th><th>NO<sub>01</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Environmental sustainability<sup>1</sup></td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low to medium</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Adopting best dairy herd management practices<sup>2</sup></strong></td><td>Medium</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>High</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Feed efficiency<sup>3</sup></td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Medium to high</td></tr><tr><td><sup>a</sup>N efficiency: Feed to animal product<sup>3</sup></td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Medium to high</td></tr><tr><td>Enhance circular feed supply<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low to medium</td></tr><tr><td>Local production<sup>3</sup></td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td></tr><tr><td>Concentrate-to-forage ratio<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Low</td><td>Medium to low</td></tr><tr><td>By-products used in diet<sup>3</sup></td><td>High</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Reducing unproductive cattle<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Age at first calving<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Calving interval<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Environmental quality<sup>2</sup></strong></td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>High</td><td>Medium</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Very low</td></tr><tr><td>Water quality<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Low</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Eutrophication potential<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to High</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Medium to High</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Contribution to climate change<sup>3</sup></td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Global warming potential<sup>3</sup></td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Air quality<sup>2</sup></td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Very high</td><td>High</td><td>Very high</td><td>Very high</td><td>Very low</td></tr><tr><td>Air acidification<sup>2</sup></td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Very low</td><td>Low</td><td>Very low</td><td>Very low</td><td>Very high</td></tr><tr><td>Soil quality<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to High</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td></tr><tr><td>Erosion risk<sup>2</sup></td><td>Low</td><td>Very low</td><td>Low</td><td>Very low</td><td>Very low</td><td>Very low</td><td>Very high</td></tr><tr><td>Heavy metal balance<sup>4</sup></td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Abiotic resources conservation<sup>2</sup></strong></td><td>Medium</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Medium</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 2** (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Medium to high</th><th>High</th><th>High</th><th>High</th><th>High</th><th>High</th><th>High</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Reducing water use<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Water use for animal housing<sup>3</sup></td><td>none</td><td>none</td><td>none</td><td>none</td><td>none</td><td>none</td><td>none</td></tr><tr><td>% of cultivated area irrigated<sup>3</sup></td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Reducing energy use<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Very low</td><td>Very high</td></tr><tr><td>Total energy consumption<sup>2</sup></td><td>Medium</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Very low</td><td>Very high</td></tr><tr><td>Farm energy production in the total energy use<sup>2</sup></td><td>Very low</td><td>Very low</td><td>Very low</td><td>Very low</td><td>Very low</td><td>Very low</td><td>Very low</td></tr><tr><td>Biodiversity conservation<sup>2</sup></td><td>Low</td><td>Medium</td><td>Low</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Animal breeds and crop biodiversity<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Number of different breeds<sup>3</sup></td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low</td><td>Low to medium</td></tr><tr><td>Number of different cultivated species<sup>3</sup></td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Reducing pesticide use<sup>3</sup></td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td></tr><tr><td>Total treatment frequency index<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Acute toxicity<sup>2</sup></td><td>High</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Very low</td><td>Very low</td><td>Very low</td><td>Very high</td></tr><tr><td>Agroecosystem Biodiversity<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Medium to high</td></tr><tr><td>Habitat diversity<sup>4</sup></td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Medium</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Grassland management<sup>4</sup></td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Participation in agri-environmental scheme<sup>5</sup></td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>

Although FR<sub>01</sub>, FR<sub>02</sub>, and DE<sub>02</sub> had an equivalent medium score for environmental sustainability, their profiles were very different. Indeed, FR<sub>01</sub> had mainly medium values for all indicators, with higher scores for “local production” (medium to high) and “by-products used in diet” (high) and lower scores for “contribution to climate change” (the contribution to climate change is high) and “biodiversity conservation.” FR<sub>02</sub> had more contrasted scores, with low values for “feed efficiency,” “by-products used in diet,” “age at first calving,” “water quality,” and “contribution to climate change” and high scores for “soil

quality” and “abiotic resources conservation.” For DE<sub>02</sub>, high scores were encountered for “air quality,” “soil quality,” and “reducing water use.”

The Norwegian case study, NO<sub>01</sub>, presented the lowest environmental score of all case studies, i.e., low to medium. This could be explained by the lower scores obtained for the themes of “environmental quality” and “biodiversity conservation” (very low and low, respectively) and the medium score achieved for “abiotic resources conservation.” A high score was obtained only for “adopting best dairy herd management practices.” It is

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

<footnote><sup>a</sup>N for Nitrogen</footnote>

<footnote n="1"><sup>1</sup>Seven-classes qualitative scale: very low, low, low to medium, medium, medium to high, high, very high</footnote>

<footnote n="2"><sup>2</sup>Five-classes qualitative scale: very low; low, medium; high; very high</footnote>

<footnote n="3"><sup>3</sup>Four-classes qualitative scale: low, low to medium, medium to high, high</footnote>

<footnote n="4"><sup>4</sup>Three-classes qualitative scale: low, medium, high</footnote>

<footnote n="5"><sup>5</sup>Two-classes qualitative scale: low, high</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 3** Assessment of the economic branch for each case study using the DEXi-Dairy model. (FR: France, DE: Germany, IR: Ireland, NO: Norway). The gradient of colour is distributed as follow from dark red for very low score to dark green for very high score</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Attributes</th><th colspan="8">Case Studies</th></tr><tr><th>FR<sub>01</sub></th><th>FR<sub>02</sub></th><th>DE<sub>01</sub></th><th>DE<sub>02</sub></th><th>IR<sub>01</sub></th><th>IR<sub>02</sub></th><th>NO<sub>01</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Economic sustainability<sup>1</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Profitability<sup>2</sup></strong></td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Medium</td></tr><tr><td>Economic return<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td></tr><tr><td>Farm gross output per unpaid labour input<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td></tr><tr><td>Profit<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td></tr><tr><td>Farm gross margin per unpaid labour input<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td></tr><tr><td>Farm income<sup>3</sup></td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td></tr><tr><td>Farm net income (before depreciation) per unpaid labour input<sup>3</sup></td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low to medium</td></tr><tr><td>Dairy product sales<sup>3</sup></td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Dairy product sales per dairy cow<sup>3</sup></td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Resilience<sup>2</sup></strong></td><td>High</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Dependence on the market rather than subsidies<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Market orientation<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Pressure of debts<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Loan repayments per farm gross margin<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Degree of specialization in dairy production<sup>3</sup></td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Dairy gross output in the farm gross output<sup>3</sup></td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Efficiency<sup>2</sup></strong></td><td>Very high</td><td>Medium</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Medium</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Cost efficiency<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low to medium</td></tr><tr><td>Direct production costs per farm gross output<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td></tr><tr><td>Direct production costs per utilised agricultural area<sup>3</sup></td><td>Low to medium</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Labour efficiency<sup>3</sup></td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td></tr><tr><td>Labour input per farm gross output<sup>3</sup></td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td></tr><tr><td>Labour input per utilised agricultural area<sup>3</sup></td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>High</td><td>High</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low to medium</td></tr><tr><td>Partial productivity<sup>3</sup></td><td>High</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Milk produced per cow<sup>3</sup></td><td>High</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low to medium</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹Seven- classes qualitative scale: very low, low, low to medium, medium, medium to high, high, very high</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Five-classes qualitative scale: very low; low, medium; high; very high</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Four-classes qualitative scale: low, low to medium, medium to high, high</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>**Table 4** Assessment of the social branch for each case study using the DEXi-Dairy model. (FR: France, DE: Germany, IR: Ireland, NO: Norway). The gradient of colour is distributed as follow from dark red for very low score to dark green for very high score</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Attributes</th><th colspan="7">Case Studies</th></tr><tr><th>FR<sub>01</sub></th><th>FR<sub>02</sub></th><th>DE<sub>01</sub></th><th>DE<sub>02</sub></th><th>IR<sub>01</sub></th><th>IR<sub>02</sub></th><th>NO<sub>01</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Social sustainability<sup>1</sup></td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium</td><td>High</td><td>Very low</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainability of farm work<sup>2</sup></td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Physiological and security needs<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>High</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Social needs<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Low</td><td>High</td><td>Medium</td></tr><tr><td>Esteem and self-actualisation needs<sup>3</sup></td><td>Low</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainability of life outside of farming<sup>2</sup></td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Medium to low</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Medium to high</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Physiological and security<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>High</td><td>Medium</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Social needs<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium</td><td>Low</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Esteem and self-actualisation needs<sup>3</sup></td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Low</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Low</td></tr></tbody></table>

important to note that all case study farms had poor scores in “biodiversity conservation,” even if some (DE<sub>02</sub>, IR<sub>01</sub>, and IR<sub>02</sub>) had a high score for “reducing pesticide use.”

In terms of economic sustainability, most of the case studies had a medium to high score, whereas two farms (FR<sub>02</sub> and NO<sub>01</sub>) obtained a medium score (Table 3). These two farms had the lowest score of all case studies for the theme “resilience” (i.e., low) and a medium score for the theme “profitability.” Concerning the other case studies, even if their overall economic sustainability score was identical, their profile varied strongly. Indeed, the Irish and German farms had high performances in terms of the sub-themes “profit,” “dependence on the market rather in subsidies,” and “direct production costs per farm gross output,” whereas the strongest score (i.e., very high) for FR<sub>01</sub> was for the theme “efficiency.” For this farm, 2 out of 3 “efficiency” sub-themes scored high.

Some structural elements could explain the variability observed among the different cases studies in terms of environmental and economic profiles. The Norwegian farm, NO<sub>01</sub>, is the smallest farm in the sample with 38.7 livestock units (LU) and 30 ha of UAA. It is also the farm that was the most intensive user of N fertilization on grassland (325.0 kg organic N.ha<sup>-1</sup> and 109.3 kg mineral N.ha<sup>-1</sup>) using a fan spreader. The management and the rate of fertilization led to the highest indicator values of the sample in terms of climate change, eutrophication, acidification, and erosion risk (see supplementary material in Balaine et al. (2023)).

addition to having an adverse effect on farm costs, this high rate of fertilization resulted in larger reactive N emissions to air and water, principally in the form of ammonia (NH<sub>3</sub>), nitrates (NO<sub>3</sub><sup>-</sup>), and nitrous oxide (N<sub>2</sub>O) (Oenema et al. 2007). Particularly, N losses, in the form of NH<sub>3</sub> volatilization and NO<sub>3</sub><sup>-</sup>, and the consequent indirect N<sub>2</sub>O emissions, significantly contribute to climate change, eutrophication, and acidification potential, thus representing a major human health risk (Bowles et al. 2018). Furthermore, FR<sub>01</sub> and FR<sub>02</sub> had a similar herd size (74 cows on average). However, FR<sub>01</sub> had a higher productivity (9,567 l.cow<sup>-1</sup>), combined with higher N fertilization on grassland (156.6 kg mineral N.ha<sup>-1</sup> and 35.0 kg organic N.ha<sup>-1</sup>). As for FR<sub>02</sub>, it had a lower productivity (5433 l.cow<sup>-1</sup>), with cows mainly reared on grassland (94.6 % of the UAA were grassland) and with a low mineral fertilization rate (6.9 kg mineral N.ha<sup>-1</sup>). IR<sub>01</sub> and IR<sub>02</sub> are typical Irish farms, with 100 % of the UAA used for grassland. Nevertheless, these two farms differed based on their farm stocking rate (2.02 and 2.70 LU.ha<sup>-1</sup>, respectively) and their fertilization scheme. Indeed, IR<sub>02</sub> applied 2.6 times more kg organic N.ha<sup>-1</sup> on grassland than IR<sub>01</sub>. DE<sub>02</sub> was an organic dairy farm with extensive grasslands (230 ha) and a low farm stocking rate (0.55 LU.ha<sup>-1</sup>). In contrast, DE<sub>01</sub> had a highly productive herd (10,870 l.cow<sup>-1</sup>), as well as a high farm stocking density (2.57 LU.ha<sup>-1</sup>).

As for the social sustainability indicators, the overall scores differed strongly among case studies (Table 4). IR<sub>02</sub> obtained a high score, whereas NO<sub>01</sub> obtained a very low score. For this

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹Seven-classes qualitative scale: very low, low, low to medium, medium, medium to high, high, very high</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Four-classes qualitative scale: low, low to medium, medium to high, high</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Three-classes qualitative scale: low, medium, high</footnote>
farm, all the indicators obtained the lowest value of all case studies (i.e., low), except for social needs related to the theme “sustainability of farm work” where a medium was reached. FR₀₁, FR₀₂, DE₀₁, and IR₀₁ obtained a medium social sustainability score. A detailed analysis showed that in the theme of “sustainability of farm work,” the lowest scores of all case studies were obtained by farms FR₀₁, IR₀₁, and NO₀₁ (i.e., low to medium, low to medium, and low, respectively). In this theme, DE₀₁ obtained a low score for the indicator “-esteem and self-actualization needs,” encompassing statements about the general condition of agriculture in a given country, and personal and farm development. Similarly, a low score for this indicator was obtained by the Norwegian farm, NO₀₁. This farm also scored low for the indicator “physiological and security needs,” measuring the fulfilment of needs related to health, economic security, and social welfare. In addition, the data indicated that most of the respondents were convinced of the negative impact of their work on health, both in the context of increased physical effort and higher accident risk. In both cases, this applies to six out of seven surveyed farmers. The exception was IR₀₂, where this sphere of work was rated highly. Conversely, the other Irish farm, IR₀₁, obtained a low score for the “social needs” indicator, encompassing statements successively concerning social contacts with other farmers, feeling of loneliness at work, and the potential continuation of the farm, for example, after the farm holder retires. High scores for “sustainability of farm work” concerned only IR₀₂, which showed high scores for the “physiological and security needs” and “social needs” indicators. In this case, the indicator “-esteem and self-actualization needs” obtained a medium score. The theme of “sustainability of life outside of farming” also differentiated surveyed farmers. The lowest scores of all case studies were obtained by NO₀₁ (i.e., low) and FR₀₂ and DE₀₁ (i.e., medium). The lowest score of FR₀₂ concerned the fulfilment of social needs in the farmer’s private life (i.e., low), measured by the “social needs” indicator. This indicator is characterized by statements that refer to time for family and potential conflicts with farming tasks, as well as the feeling of loneliness or isolation both in relation to respondents and their closest family members. The lowest level scored for the indicator “-esteem and self-actualization needs” was shown by DE₀₁ (i.e., low). It was measured by statements referring to work-related difficulties in realizing one’s desires and interests outside of agriculture. The Irish farm, IR₀₁, scored high on the “physiological and security needs” indicator. This indicator encompasses statements about the fulfilment of needs in the health and safety spheres occurring outside of agricultural work. Notably, these statements measured the ability to take care of health, household financial security, and access to public services and institutions. The data also showed that among the indicators used, the most differentiating farmer responses were the “physiological and security needs” indicators about work on the farm and life

outside of it. The main reason for this result was the varied satisfaction with the economic situation of the farm and family. The second category that significantly differentiated responses were “social needs” indicators. Farmers differed the most in this area in their feelings about combining family responsibilities with professional life and continuing work on the farm. Additional features influencing the variability of responses were worldviews and individual perceptions of the farm's operations. These may notably explain the differences observed in the responses of Irish farmers—operating in similar conditions and yet most different from each other in their views. However, larger research samples are needed to analyze the drivers of farm scores in greater detail and with statistical methods.

## 3.2 Scope and limitations of the DEXi-Dairy model

The framework proposed by DEXi-Dairy focuses on specialized DPSs, with the main goal of assessing sustainability performance and potential GHG mitigation options. It is worthwhile to mention that in order to be applied to other production systems, DEXi-Dairy would need to be adapted to reflect system specificities. DEXi-Dairy can be used as a model to support sustainability assessments and design cycles, as defined by Lopez-Ridaura (2005). It can also be used for the benchmarking of DPSs. The final users of DEXi-Dairy can be researchers, policymakers, agricultural advisors, and farmers, notably to provide an ex post assessment prior to the implementation of GHG mitigation options. The model can then be implemented to monitor the consequences of implementing mitigation options on the three sustainability dimensions. Nevertheless, in terms of complexity, DEXi-Dairy can be categorized as level-three sustainability assessments tools (Coteur et al. 2020), i.e., an expert-based assessment tool (De Olde et al. 2016). This is due to the time-consuming data collection, as well as the presence of LCA-based indicators in the environmental branch. Despite this complexity, DEXi-Dairy can be a useful, visual tool to spark dialogue, thanks to its different aggregation levels. The overall sustainability score can be attractive for farmers and advisors when comparing systems or implementing a new option. The model can give a straightforward indication of whether the farm is overall sustainable by reducing dimensionality issues associated with wide sets of indicators. It also provides farm-specific information about synergies and trade-offs among sustainability aspects, notably when deconstructing the overall sustainability score into its lower levels (Angevin et al. 2017).

Nevertheless, aggregation is widely criticized in the literature (Carpani et al. 2012; Bockstaller et al. 2017) due to the possibility of compensation phenomena among subthemes and themes. Thus, DEXi-Dairy should be used with caution. As explained by Binder et al. (2012), the single
score, without consideration of underlying levels, can lead to simplistic solutions. For this reason, aggregation should be seen as a useful way for clarifying and lifting the complexity of farm sustainability, but comparison among indicators should remain the most important part of the assessment (Chopin et al. 2021). For example, a medium overall sustainability score does not necessarily mean that the analyzed DPS has no large adverse impacts on or within a dimension; indeed, this farm could score very low in some sustainability aspects. Hence, we recommend to present the DEXi-Dairy results in their entirety, i.e., overall sustainability score and performance of each theme, sub-theme, and indicator, as previously underlined by Bélanger et al. (2012).

Compensation among sustainability aspects can be associated with a lack of model sensitivity. For instance, the probability of getting a medium value is high when several decision rules give average classes, as underlined by our study, as well as Craheix et al. (2015) and De Olde et al. (2016). Furthermore, a lack of sensitivity at the final aggregation step may also come from the qualitative approach of DEXi and the choice of threshold values. Bockstaller et al. (2017) presented fuzzy logic as an alternative approach to mitigate this threshold effect. Nevertheless, this alternative is not yet totally operational.

In terms of limitations on the DEXi-Dairy structure itself, it is important to note that the environmental branch (Table 2) was divided into four themes, i.e., “adopting best dairy herd management practices,” “environmental quality,” “abiotic resources conservation,” and “biodiversity conservation.” Since one of the main environmental goals assigned to DEXi-Dairy was to be sensitive to change in management practices and then to foster reduced GHG emissions from DPSs, the themes “adopting best dairy herd management practices” and “environmental quality” were given weighting factors around 30%, whereas “abiotic resources conservation” and “biodiversity conservation” were assigned factors of 17 and 20%, respectively (Fig. 3). Nevertheless, “adopting best dairy herd management” is a sub-theme related to global warming potential, as well as the sub-theme “contribution to climate change.” This induces that the real weight of global warming potential is 56% in the environmental dimension. This is in line with the GHG goal of DEXi-Dairy but could be considered a limitation for application in other contexts without further weighting adjustments. A critical point is that the theme “adopting best dairy herd management practices” consists of causal indicators (Payraudeau and van der Werf 2005), while the sub-theme “environmental quality” is based on effect indicators. As for the sub-theme “abiotic resources,” it encompasses both effect and causal indicators. This can introduce some discrepancies among impacts. One solution to avoid discrepancies in studies with other overall objectives could be to attribute a weighting factor equal to 0% to these causal

indicators. In this way, these indicators could remain in the tree as explanation for farmers or to alert advisors, while having no impact on the overall sustainability score.

More generally, it is important to acknowledge that some practical choices in model development can influence obtained sustainability scores. The previous paragraph provides an example of how the combined choice of indicators, tree structure, and weighting factors can affect the relative importance given to certain sustainability aspects in the assessment. Indeed, as indicators, sub-themes, themes, and dimensions are weighted against each other, a relatively higher weight for one of the attributes ultimately implies a lower importance elsewhere. Similarly, while DEXi-Dairy gathered 40 indicators, choices had to be made as to what indicators had and could be included and how to organize and calculate them. Furthermore, the selection of indicators and their threshold values was a particularly delicate stage since the perception of sustainability is context sensitive and thus not universal (Lebacq et al. 2013). This perception can be affected by factors such as advancement in science, socio-economic and political environments, and culture and hence is constantly evolving (Eckert and Kovalevska 2021). A more precise definition and investigation of the sustainability concept is only possible within social science discourse. Sustainable development emphasizes the diversity of social development paths, depending on their specific cultural or political contexts (Vallance et al. 2011; Sachs 1999). It is also considered essential to study the influence of worldviews and social processes as giving meaning to “sustainability” (Becker and Jahn 1999). In this context, it is difficult to free models and analyses from any possible bias. In our study, efforts were made to provide a comprehensive sustainability picture and compare farms of different conditions and sizes without pre-determining the “winner” and favoring certain systems over others. As a result, the DEXi-Dairy model provides a basis to be expanded in future work as factors such values, norms, political priorities, and production and market conditions evolve.

## 3.3 Challenges and recommendations for practitioners and future research

Developing a method to assess the sustainability of DPSs is a challenging process, which can raise some issues. Sustainability assessments require a multidisciplinary framework that brings together representatives of different scientific fields. This study gathered animal scientists, agronomists, economists, environmental scientists, LCA experts, and sociologists from several countries. The first challenge was to find a common scientific language and definitions among the various disciplines. For instance, one of the main issues was to find a common definition of social sustainability and then to characterize it through the design of

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>
social indicators. Indeed, many authors highlighted that measuring farm social sustainability is challenging due to complexity in defining the term, as well as in quantifying its different components (Janker et al. 2019; Lebacq et al. 2013). Unlike the environmental and economic dimensions, for which generic sustainability assessment frameworks can effectively cover context-specific issues (Gasso et al. 2015), scientific discourses fail to agree on what constitutes social sustainability and how it can be accurately and exhaustively depicted through standard sustainability assessment tools (Brennan et al. 2021; Gaviglio et al. 2016; Janker and Mann 2020). The current state of the art is mainly criticized because social sustainability measurements often lack theoretical depth, notably because of the use of vague conceptual frameworks (Boström 2012; Janker and Mann 2020). However, the sustainability of agricultural systems in general cannot be explored without a deeper consideration of social issues revolving around agricultural production (Janker et al. 2019). In this study, our social assessment aimed at overcoming common issues pointed out in the literature by integrating the standard DEXi multicriteria assessment tool with a theoretical framework. It took a needs-based approach and put it forward as fundamental to social sustainability both in the farmer's work and in his/her private life. In this way, social sustainability was measured with indexes of related indicator categories derived from literature and completed qualitative research. Thus, the opinions of farmers were key to the social dimension assessment, while the environmental and economic dimensions were based on scientific knowledge only. This explains why the social branch of DEXi-Dairy differed somewhat from our environmental and economic branches and, more broadly, from other social sustainability assessment previously proposed in the literature (Ramos Huarachi et al. 2020; Janker and Mann 2020). For example, interviewed farmers did not bring up animal welfare considerations, which led to their exclusion from the farmer-centered, DEXi-Dairy social indicators.

Another limitation when bringing together different scientific fields was to find a right balance between the number of iterations needed to develop and refine the DEXI-Dairy tree, the final number of indicators, and the management of project timeline. Indeed, the data collection on case study farms was directly linked to selected indicators and parameters needed to calculate them. This collaborative process took time. Specifically, eighteen meetings (Fig. 2) were needed to obtain a tree configuration that responded to study objectives, had a reasonable number of indicators, and could be technically implemented in terms of indicator calculations (e.g., availability of the data and reference values for the threshold definition). Furthermore, the wide diversity of farm and farmer characteristics encountered in the case studies (from Norway to Germany) enhanced the complexity of finding common threshold values in a European context and then of defining scales for each indicator. These aspects should

not be neglected in future projects aiming to develop a sustainability assessment tool based on the DEX framework.

The data collection was made through templates specially designed to be as detailed as possible and adapted to the different DPSs across Europe. Since LCA is a method adopted by the European Commission (2018c) and the FAO (2016) as the reference method for environmental assessment, most of the indicators in the environmental branch of this study were based on LCA or an LCI developed as part of an LCA. In their review, Curran et al. (2016) underlined a lack of consensus among the models available for LCA retrieved in the literature. Crenna et al. (2020) pointed out that existing measures of biodiversity in life cycle impact assessment methods do not capture the complexities of biodiversity and are not fully operational for use by LCA practitioners. Even though some methods perform better than others to assess biodiversity, Damiani et al. (2023) highlighted that no current method captures the whole complexity of biodiversity in LCA and beyond. The integration of biodiversity in farm sustainability assessments remains a challenging task, notably due to lack of consensus in the literature, practicality issues, and time and cost constraints (Damiani et al. 2023).

Perrin et al. (2022) underlined that the environmental assessment by LCA at farm scale should consider at least the non-productive areas of the farm. Thus, in DEXi-Dairy, an effort was made to develop some easy-to-handle biodiversity indicators since LCA did not (yet) cover this aspect. The DEXi-Dairy framework with the indicators included in the sub-theme “agroecosystem Biodiversity” attempted to overcome these limitations of the LCA method. The use of LCA/LCI and the combination with other calculation methods implied a large level of detail needed to be collected on each case study farm. Thus, the issues related to the data collection in DEXi-Dairy are the length and complexity of data collection templates (Baillet et al. 2022b). This complexity had two major consequences. First, difficulties in translating the templates into a farmer-friendly language and in filling out the templates based on farmers’ responses were encountered by all project partners. Second, a large amount of time was needed to check all the data before starting the assessment process. Moreover, the economic and social assessments implied to the need to collect some sensitive information (e.g., related to local communities, private life, regularity in payments, debts) that is not always easily shared by farmers. This aspect was already underlined by Constantini et al. (2022). Finally, it is necessary to underline the complexity of interpreting the DEXi models as they are aggregated information which makes discussion of the case study results complex due to compensation along the aggregation process and sometimes lack of sensitivity. A future adaptation of DEXi-Dairy would be to dispense with thresholds by applying the

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>
fuzzy logic proposed by Bockstaller et al. (2017), when the method becomes fully operational.

Finally, in our study, sustainability performance was measured on a spectrum, from (very)low to (very)high. We did not adopt an on/off approach nor set threshold values under which farms were considered unsustainable. This is because the literature does not provide a clear indication of what is (un)sustainable, notably due to the heterogeneity in production systems, socio-economic contexts, and agroclimatic conditions. Moreover, our view is that a sustainability gradient is more informative for end-users (such as advisors and farmers) than dichotomous scores. Future work could investigate the possibility of implementing a clear-cut, binary strategy to distinguish farms against each other. However, caution will be needed to study comparable farms (e.g., operating under very similar conditions and in the same region), determine suitable threshold values, and decide whether this strategy should be implemented partially or throughout the whole sustainability tree.

# 4 Conclusion

In this article, we introduced the DEXi-Dairy framework as a qualitative method to assess the sustainability of dairy production systems across environmental, economic, and social dimensions in an integrated manner. We developed the concept into a tool to be applied at the farm level. We created transparent guidelines for assessing dairy farm sustainability in a European context. Successful application on a test set of seven individual farms representing very different farming conditions proved the feasibility of the approach.

As shown by the results, the wide range of existing farming conditions (e.g., climate, technological advancement, farm size, economic performance, farming tradition) influenced the levels of sustainability reached in case study farms. In several cases, individual sustainability scores in the three sustainability dimensions for a given farm differed widely, indicating trade-offs in their systems. However, we also saw clear cases where a farm was performing exceptionally well, or poor, in all dimensions. While the small number of farms investigated does not allow for quantitative conclusions, this observation still indicates that some farms do generally well in terms of sustainability performance. Thus, these farms may provide a more general benchmark of optimized conditions.

This multicriteria sustainability assessment does not only establish a solid basis to compare farm sustainability performance, it may also serve as a basis to inform different stakeholders about sustainable DPSs. This may lead to better recommendations to reduce GHG emissions for policymakers, while taking into account other parameters than traditional environmental assessments. The challenge of data collection from individual farms, however, could limit the general

accessibility of the method. A larger dataset and the inclusion of panel data analysis may provide more insights. Further development of DEXi-Dairy towards using more widely available (statistical) data may be useful in this regard.

**Supplementary Information** The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-023-00935-3.

**Acknowledgements** The authors thank Elisabeth Castellan from the French Livestock Institute (IDELE) for collecting the French data, and Grete H.M. Jørgensen (NIBIO) for the Norwegian data.

The authors thank the Milkey partners for their contribution to the Dexi-indicator definition workshops: Elisabeth Castellan (IDELE) and Grete H.M. Jørgensen (NIBIO) for the environmental branch and Una Sinnott (UCD) and Bjørn Egil Flø (NIBIO) for the social branch.

**Authors' contributions** Funding acquisition: BA

Conceptualization of the multicriteria assessment: AW, NAC

Methodology: AW, VB, LB, AR, XDO, FD, VA, NAC, BA (environmental branch); LB, HA, JB, CB, WW (economic branch); JFM, DR, AW, VB, LB (social branch)

Data acquisition: LB, XDO, FD, JFM,

Data calculation: VB, LB, JFM, DR, AW

Data curation: VB, LB, XDO, AW

Writing (first draft): AW, VB, LB, XDO, FD, DK, JFM, VA, AR, DR, WW, CB, JB, HA, BA.

Review and editing: AW, LB, JFM, VB, FD.

All the authors commented on several versions of the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.

**Funding** The publication of this article was funded by the MilKey project [ID number 39288] laureate of the 2018 Joint Call of the Cofund ERA-Nets FACCE ERA-GAS [grant number 696356], SusAn [grant number 696231], and ICT-AGRI 2 [grant number 618123] on "Novel technologies, solutions and systems to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in animal production systems." The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of their national funding agencies: the French National Research Agency (Agence Nationale de la Recherche) [grant number ANR-19-SUGA-0003]; the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine [grant number 2019EN201]; the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) through the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE) [grant number 2819ERA08A]; the Research Council of Norway [grant number 310430]; the Polish National Centre for Research and Development (Narodowe Centrum Badań i Rozwoju) [grant number SUSAN / II / MILKEY / 02/2020]; and the Greek General Secretariat for Research and Innovation [grant number: T11EPA4-00074].

**Data availability** The supplementary material that supports this study is stocked on public repository (https://entrepot.recherche.data.gouv.fr/dataverse/Eragas_Milkey). The data sets that support this study are available on request.

# Declarations

**Ethics approval** Not applicable.

**Consent to participate** Not applicable.

**Consent for publication** Not applicable.

**Conflict of interest** The authors declare no competing interests.
**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

## References

Acosta-Alba I, Corson M, van der Werf H, Leterme P (2012) Using reference values to assess environmental sustainability of dairy farms. Renew Agric Food Syst 27(3):217–227. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170511000329

Angevin F, Fortino G, Bockstaller C, Pelzer E, Messéan A (2017) Assessing the sustainability of crop production systems: toward a common framework? Crop Protect 97:18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2016.11.018

Auberger J, Malnoë C, Biard Y, Colomb V, Grassely D, Martin E, Van der Werf HMG, Aubin J (2018) MEANS, user-friendly software to generate LCIs of farming systems. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Life Cycle assessment of food (LCA food). Bangkok, Thailand, 17-19 October 2018

Baillet V, Balaine L, Díaz de Otálora X, Rodriguez DGP, Frátczak-Müller J, Flø BE, Amon B, Alem H, Anestis V, Bartzanas T, Breen J, Buckley C, Castellan E, Dach J, Dragoni F, Johansen A, Jørgensen G, Lien G, Rychla A, Sinnott U, Wawrzyniak A, Winiwarter W, Wilfart A (2022a) Dexi-Dairy indicator handbook - sustainability tree and selected indicators for assessing European specialised dairy farms V1. Recherche Data Gouv. Available via https://doi.org/10.57745/XEPNUH

Baillet V, Balaine L, Diaz de Otálora XD, Flø BE, Rodriguez DGP, Krol D, Amon B, Wilfart A (2022b) Sustainability assessment of dairy production systems: templates for farm data collection. Recherche Data Gouv. Available via https://doi.org/10.57745/XVFWVC

Baillet V, Balaine L, Krol D, Amon B, Wilfart A (2022c) Sustainability assessment of dairy production systems: guide for the collection of farm environmental and economic data. Recherche Data Gouv. Available via https://doi.org/10.57745/R6EM40

Balaine L, Krol D, Baillet V, Rodriguez DGP, Frátczak-Müller J, Diaz de Otálora XD, Dragoni F, Amon B, Castellan E, Jørgensen G, Alem H, Flø BE, Sinnott U, Wilfart A (2023) Sustainability assessment of dairy production systems: dataset of the Milkey project V1. Recherche Data Gouv. Available via https://doi.org/10.57745/ZBQC9B

Becker E, Jahn T (1999) Sustainability and the social sciences. Zed Books Ltd, London, A cross-disciplinary approach to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation

Bélanger V, Vanasse A, Parent D, Allard G, Pellerin D (2012) Development of agri-environmental indicators to assess dairy farm sustainability in Quebec, Eastern Canada. Ecol Indicators 23:421–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.04.027

Bélanger V, Vanasse A, Parent D, Allard G, Pellerin D (2015) DELTA: an integrated indicator-based self-assessment tool for the evaluation of dairy farms sustainability in Quebec. Canada. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 39(9):1022–1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2015.1069775

Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA

Bergez JE (2013) Using a genetic algorithm to define worst-best and best-worst options of a DEXi-type model: application to the MASC model of cropping-system sustainability. Comput Electron Agric 90:93–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2012.08.010

Binder CR, Schmid A, Steinberger JK (2012) Sustainability solution space of the Swiss milk value added chain. Ecol Econ 83:210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.06.022

Bockstaller C, Beauchet S, Manneville V, Amiaud B, Botreau R (2017) A tool to design fuzzy decision trees for sustainability assessment. Environ Model Software 97:130–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.07.011

Bockstaller C, Galland V, Avadi A (2022) Modelling direct field nitrogen emissions using a semi-mechanistic leaching model newly implemented in Indigo-N v3. Ecol Model 472:110109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.110109

Bohanec M (2020) DEXi: a program for qualitative multi-attribute decision modelling. Available via: https://kt.ijs.si/MarkoBohanec/dexi.html. Accessed 15 Apr 2021

Bohanec M, Messean A, Scatasta S, Angevin F, Griffiths B, Krogh PH, Znidarsic M, Dzeroski S (2008) A qualitative multi-attribute model for economic and ecological assessment of genetically modified crops. Ecol Model 215(1–3):247–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.02.016

Boogaard BK, Oosting SJ, Bock BB, Wiskerke JSC (2011) The socio-cultural sustainability of livestock farming: an inquiry into social perceptions of dairy farming. Animal 5(09):1458–1466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111000371

Borawski P, Pawlewicz A, Mickiewicz B, Pawlewicz K, Beldycka-Borawska A, Holden L, Brelik A (2020) Economic sustainability of dairy farms in the EU. European Research Studies Journal 23(1):955–978. https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/1864

Boström M (2012) A missing pillar? Challenges in Theorizing and Practicing Social Sustainability: Introduction to the Special Issue Sustain Sci Pract Policy 8:3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2012.11908080

Bowles TM, Atallah SS, Campbell EE, Gaudin ACM, Wieder WR, Grandy AS (2018) Addressing agricultural nitrogen losses in a changing climate. Nature Sustainability 1(8):399–408. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0106-0

Brennan M, Hennessy T, Dillon E (2021) Towards a better measurement of the social sustainability of Irish agriculture. Int J Sustain Dev 23:263–287. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2020.115229

Buckley C, Donnellan T (2020) Teagasc national farm survey 2019 sustainability report. Teagasc. Available via https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2020/NFS-2019-Sustainability-Report.pdf. Accessed 23 Mar 2021

Carpani M, Bergez J-E, Monod H (2012) Sensitivity analysis of a hierarchical qualitative model for sustainability assessment of cropping systems. Environ Model Software 27–28:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.10.002

Chopin P, Mubaya CP, Descheemaeker K, Oborn I, Bergkvist G (2021) Avenues for improving farming sustainability assessment with upgraded tools, sustainability framing and indicators. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 41(19). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00674-3

Clay N, Garnett T, Lorimer J (2020) Dairy intensification: drivers, impacts and alternatives. Ambio 49(1):35–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01177-y

Colomb B, Carof M, Aveline A, Bergez J-E (2013) Stockless organic farming: strengths and weaknesses evidenced by a multicriteria sustainability assessment model. Agron Sustain Dev 33(3):593–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0126-5

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>
Constantini M, Guarino M, Bacenetti J (2022) Pig farming under a life cycle thinking lens: the first combined environmental, economic and social life cycle analysis. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 13th international conference on life cycle assessment of food (LCA Foods 2022), Lima, Peru, 12-14 October 2022

Coteur I, Wustenberghs H, Debruyne L, Lauwers L, Marchand F (2020) How do current sustainability assessment tools support farmers' strategic decision making? Ecol Indicators 114:106298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106298

Craheix D, Angevin F, Bergez JE, Bockstaller C, Colomb B, Guichard L, Reau R, Doré T (2012) MASC 2.0, un outil d'évaluation multicritère pour estimer la contribution des systèmes de culture au développement durable. Innovations Agronomiques 20:35-48

Craheix D, Bergez J-E, Angevin F, Bockstaller C, Bohanec M, Colomb B, Doré T, Fortino G, Guichard L, Pelzer E, Méssean A, Reau R, Sadok W (2015) Guidelines to design models assessing agricultural sustainability, based upon feedbacks from the DEXi decision support system. Agron Sustain Dev 35(4):1431-1447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0315-0

Crenna E, Marques A, La Notte A, Sala S (2020) Biodiversity assessment of value chains: state of the art and emerging challenges. Environ Sci Technol 54(16):9715-9728. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05153

Curran M, Maia de Souza D, Antón A, Teixeira RFM, Michelsen O, Vidal-Legaz B, SalaMilàCanals SIL (2016) How Well Does LCA Model land use impacts on biodiversity?—a comparison with approaches from ecology and conservation. Environ Sci Technol 50(6):2782-2795. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04681

Damiani M, Sinkko T, Caldeira C, Tosches D, Robuchon M, Sala S (2023) Critical review of methods and models for biodiversity impact assessment and their applicability in the LCA context. Environ Impact Assess Rev 101:107134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107134

De Olde EM, Oudshoorn FW, Bokkers EAM, Stubsgaard A, Sørensen CAG, De Boer IJM (2016) Assessing the Sustainability Performance of Organic Farms in Denmark. Sustainability 8(9):957

Di Gregorio A, Jansen LJM (2000) Land Cover Classification System (LCCS). FAO, Rome

Diaz de Otálora X, del Prado A, Dragoni F, Estelles F, Amon B (2021) Evaluating three-pillar sustainability modelling approaches for dairy cattle production systems. Sustainability 13(11):6332. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116332

Diaz de Otálora X, Dragoni F, Del Prado A, Estelles F, Wilfart A, Krol D, Balaine L, Anestis V, Amon B (2022) Identification of representative dairy cattle and fodder crop production typologies at regional scale in Europe. Agron Sustain Dev 42:94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00830-3

Dubois D (2016) Normes agricoles : retrouver le chemin du bon sens. vol n°733. Comission des affaires économiques, Senat. Available via https://www.senat.fr/rap/r15-733/r15-7331.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2021

Eckert E, Kovalevska O (2021) Sustainability in the European Union: analyzing the discourse of the european green deal. J Risk Financial Manag 14(2):80. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14020080

European commission (2013) Product environmental footprint (PEF) Guide. European Commission, Luxembourg. Available via https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013H0179. Accessed 25 Feb 2020

European Commission (2018a) EU Dairy farms report based on 2016 FADN data. Brussels, Belgium

European Commission (2018b) EU Farm Economics Overview based on 2015 (and 2016) FADN data. Brussels, Belgium

European commission (2018c) PEFCR Guidance document, guidance for the development of Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs), version 6.3. Available via https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/permalink/PEFCR_guidance_v6.3-2.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2020

European Commission (2019) FADN public database. Available via https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/FarmEconomyFocus/FADNDatabase.html. Accessed 3 Mar 2021

European Commission (2020) Definitions of Variables used in FADN standard results. Brussels, Belgium. Available via https://fadn.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/RICC_1750_Standard_Results-v-Jun-2022.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2022

Eurostat (2022) Glossary: Farm typology. Available via https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary: Farm typology. Accessed 13 Jan 2023

FAO (2014) SAFA - Sustainability assessment of food and agriculture systems guidelines. Version 3.0. Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations, Rome, Italy. Available via https://www.fao.org/3/i4113e/i4113e.pdf. Accessed 18 Sept 2023

FAO (2016) Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains: guidelines for assessment. Rome, Italy

Frischknecht R, Wyss F, Büsser Knöpfel S, Lützkendorf T, Balouktsi M (2015) Cumulative energy demand in LCA: the energy harvested approach. Int J Life Cycle Ass 20(7):957-969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0897-4

Gasso V, Oudshoorn FW, de Olde E, Sorensen CAG (2015) Generic sustainability assessment themes and the role of context: The case of Danish maize for German biogas. Ecol Indicators 49:143-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.10.008

Gaviglio A, Bertocchi M, Marescotti ME, Demartini E, Pirani A (2016) The social pillar of sustainability: a quantitative approach at the farm level. Agric Food Econ 4:1-19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-016-0059-4

Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci A, Tempio G (2013) Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy

Gésan-Guiziou G, Alaphilippe A, Aubin J, Bockstaller C, Boutrou R, Buche P, Collet C, Girard A, Martinet V, Membré J-M (2020) Diversity and potentiality of multicriteria decision analysis methods for agri-food research. Agron Sustain Dev 40(6):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00650-3

Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York

Grenz J, Thalmann C, Stämpfli A, Studer C, Häni F (2009) RISE- A method for assessing the sustainability of agricultural production at farm level. Rural Dev News 1:5-9

Guinee JB, Gorree M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment. An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Springer, Leiden, The Netherlands

Herzog F, Jeanneret P, Ammari Y, Angelova S, Arndorfer M, Bailey D, Balázs K, Báldi A, Bogers M, Bunce RG (2013) Measuring farmland biodiversity. Solutions 4(4):52-58

ISO (2006) Environmental management - life cycle assessment - principles and framework. EN ISO 14040. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland

Janker J, Mann S (2020) Understanding the social dimension of sustainability in agriculture: a critical review of sustainability assessment tools. Environ Dev Sustain 22(3):1671-1691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0282-0

Janker J, Mann S, Rist S (2019) Social sustainability in agriculture - a system-based framework. J Rural Stud 65:32-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.12.010

JRC (2012) Characterisation factors of the ILCD recommended life cycle impact assessment methods, database and supporting information. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Available via https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/LCIA-characterization-factors-of-the-ILCD.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2020
Koch P, Salou T (2015) AGRIBALYSE(R): Methodological report - Version 1.3. ADEME, Angers, France

Laborte AG, Van Ittersum MK, Van den Berg MM (2007) Multi-scale analysis of agricultural development: A modelling approach for Ilocos Norte. Philippines. Agr Syst 94(3):862-873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2006.11.011

Lairez J, Feschet P, Aubin J, Bockstaller C, Bouvarel I (2015) Agriculture et développement durable: Guide pour l'évaluation multicrière. Editions Educagri & Quae, Versailles, France

Le Féon S, Dubois T, Jaeger C, Wilfart A, Akkal-Corfini N, Bacenetti J, Costantini M, Aubin J (2021) DEXiAqua, a Model to assess the sustainability of aquaculture systems: methodological development and application to a French Salmon Farm. Sustainability 13(14):7779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147779

Lebacq T, Baret PV, Stilmant D (2013) Sustainability indicators for livestock farming. A Review. Agron Sustain Dev 33(2):311-327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0121-x

Lewandowski I, Hardtlein M, Kaltschmitt M (1999) Sustainable crop production: Definition and methodological approach for assessing and implementing sustainability. Crop Sci 39(1):184-193. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1999.0011183X003900010029x

Lopez-Ridaura S (2005) Multi-scale sustainability evaluation: a framework for the derivation and quantification of indicators for natural resource management systems, vol 68. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, Tropical Resource Management Papers

Manneville V, Chanséaume A, Amiaud B (2014) BIOTEX: une démarche d'évaluation multicritère de la biodiversité ordinaire dans les systèmes d'exploitation d'élevage et de polyculture-déleve. Université de Lorraine, Paris, France, Institut de l'élevage idele

Marchand F, Debruyne L, Triste L, Gerrard C, Padel S, Lauwers L (2014) Key characteristics for tool choice in indicator-based sustainability assessment at farm level. Ecol Soc 19(3):10. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-06876-190346

Marchand G (2010) Un système d'indicateurs pour évaluer les impacts territoriaux des politiques de développement durable dans les zones rurales en Amazonie brésilienne : l'expérience IDURAMAZ. Dissertation. Université Sorbonne Nouvelle - Paris 3, Paris, France

Maslow AH (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev 50(4):370-396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

Metral R, Dubuc M, Delière L, Petitgenet M, Gary C (2015) Dexipm-Grapevine: a multicriteria assessment tool of the sustainability for grapevine farming systems. Paper presented at the 19èmes Journées Internationales de Viticulture GiESCO. Gruissan, France, May 2015

Meul M, Van Passel S, Nevens F, Dessein J, Rogge E, Mulier A, Van Hauwermeiren A (2008) MOTIFS: a monitoring tool for integrated farm sustainability. Agron Sustain Dev 28(2):321-332. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2008001

Mouron P, Heijne B, Naef A, Strassemeyer J, Hayer F, Avilla J, Alaphilippe A, Höhn H, Hernandez J, Mack G, Gaillard G, Solé J, Sauphanor B, Patocchi A, Samietz J, Bravin E, Lavigne C, Bohanec M, Golla B, Scheer C, Aubert U, Bigler F (2012) Sustainability assessment of crop protection systems: SustainOS methodology and its application for apple orchards. Agric Syst 113:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.07.004

Oenema O, Oudendag D, Velthof GL (2007) Nutrient losses from manure management in the European Union. Livest Sci 112(3):261-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.007

Opio C, Gerber P, Mottet A, Falcucci A, Tempio G, MacLeod M, Vellinga T, Henderson B, Steinfeld H (2013) Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the ruminant supply chains: A Global Life Cycle Assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy

Payraudeau S, van der Werf HMG (2005) Environmental impact assessment for a farming region: a review of methods. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 107(1):1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2004.12.012

Pellerin S, Bamière L, Angers D, Béline F, Benoît M, Butault JP, Chen C, Colnenne-David C, De Cara S, Delame N, Doreau M, Dupraz P, Faverdi P, Garccia-Launa F, Hassouna M, Hénault C, Jeuffroy MH, Klumpp K, Metay A, Moran D, Recous S, Samson E, Savini I, Pardon L (2013) Quelle contribution de l'agriculture française à la réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre ? Potentiel d'atténuation et coût de dix actions techniques. Synthesis Report, INRA, France. Available via https://www.inrae.fr/sites/default/files/pdf/4ce01662146c72f5de3ed9130c30c5dd.pdf. Accessed 29 Mar 2020

Pelzer E, Fortino G, Bockstaller C, Angevin F, Lamine C, Moonen C, Vasileiadis V, Guérin D, Guichard L, Reau R (2012) Assessing innovative cropping systems with DEXiPM, a qualitative multicriteria assessment tool derived from DEXi. Ecol Indicators 18:171-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.11.019

Perrin A, Czyrnek-Deletre M, Ben Jaballah M, Rouault A, van der Werf HMG, Ghali M, Sigwalt A, Renaud-Gentie C (2022) A participatory ecodesign framework to address both environmental and economic dimensions in viticulture at farm scale. Agron Sustain Dev 42 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00730-y

Ramos Huarachi DA, Piekarski CM, Puglieri FN, de Francisco AC (2020) Past and future of Social Life Cycle Assessment: Historical evolution and research trends. J Cleaner Prod 264:121506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121506

Rezaei ME, Barmaki M, Veisi H (2018) Sustainability assessment of potato fields using the DEXi decision support system in Hamadan Province. Iran. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 17(11):2583-2595. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(18)62107-0

Sachs I (1999) Social sustainability and whole development: exploring the dimensions of sustainable development. Zed Books Ltd., London

Sadok W, Angevin F, Bergez J-E, Bockstaller C, Colomb B, Guichard L, Reau R, Messéan A, Doré T (2009) MASC, a qualitative multi-attribute decision model for ex ante assessment of the sustainability of cropping systems. Agron Sustain Dev 29(3):447-461. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009006

Segerkvist KA, Hansson H, Sonesson U, Gunnarsson S (2020) Research on environmental, economic, and social sustainability in dairy farming: a systematic mapping of current literature. Sustainability 12(14):14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145502

Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal 27(3):379-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

Silverman D (2016) Qualitative research-4th edition. SAGE, London

Soulé E, Hawes C, Young M, Henckel L, Michel N, Michonneau P, Bockstaller C (2023) A predictive indicator assessing effect of cropping system and surrounding landscape on biodiversity. Ecol Indicators 151:110289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110289

Soulé E, Michonneau P, Michel N, Bockstaller C (2021) Environmental sustainability assessment in agricultural systems: a conceptual and
methodological review. J Cleaner Prod 325:129291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129291

Tallentire CW, Edwards SA, Van Limbergen T, Kyriazakis I (2019) The challenge of incorporating animal welfare in a social life cycle assessment model of European chicken production. Int J Life Cycle Ass 24(6):1093–1104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1565-2

Turner BA (1991) Research methods and organization studies - BRY-MAN. A. British Journal of Sociology 42(2):294–295. https://doi.org/10.2307/590376

Vallance S, Perkins HC, Dixon JE (2011) What is social sustainability? A Clarification of Concepts. Geoforum 42(3):342–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.002

Vasileiadis VP, Moonen AC, Sattin M, Otto S, Pons X, Kudsk P, Veres A, Dorner Z, van der Weide R, Marraccini E, Pelzerg E, Angevin F, Kiss J (2013) Sustainability of European maize-based cropping systems: economic, environmental and social assessment of current and proposed innovative IPM-based systems. Eur J Agron 48:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.02.001

Walz U (2011) Landscape structure, landscape metrics and biodiversity. Living Rev Landsca Res 5(3):1–35. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrlr-2011-3

Wilfart A, Espagnol S, Dauguet S, Tailleur A, Gac A, Garcia-Lau-nay F (2016) ECOALIM: a dataset of environmental impacts of feed ingredients used in french animal production. PLoS ONE 11(12):e0167343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167343

Zahm F, Viaux P, Vilain L, Girardin P, Mouchet C (2008) Assessing farm sustainability with the idea method - from the concept of agriculture sustainability to case studies on farms. Sustain Dev 16(4):271–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.380

**Publisher's note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

## Authors and Affiliations

Aurelie Wilfart¹ Ⓓ · Vincent Baillet¹ · Lorraine Balaine² · Xabier Díaz de Otálora³,⁴ · Federico Dragoni³ ·

Dominika Joanna Krol⁵ · Joanna Frączak-Müller⁶ · Anna Rychła⁷ · Divina Gracia P. Rodriguez⁸ · James Breen⁹ ·

Vasileios Anestis¹⁰ · Cathal Buckley² · Habtamu Alem⁸ · Wilfried Winiwarter⁷,¹¹ · Nouraya Akkal-Corfini¹ ·

Barbara Amon³,⁷

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

Aurelie Wilfart
aurelie.wilfart@inrae.fr

¹ INRAE, Institut Agro, SAS, 35000 Rennes, France

² Teagasc, Agricultural Economics and Farm Surveys Department, Rural Economy and Development Programme, Mellows Campus, Athenry, Co, Galway H65 R718, Ireland

³ Leibniz-Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), 14469 Potsdam, Germany

⁴ Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), 48940 Leioa, Spain

⁵ Teagasc, Environment, Soils and Land Use Department, Johnstown Castle, Wexford Y35 TC97, Ireland

⁶ University of Zielona Góra, Institute of Sociology, 65-417 Zielona Góra, Poland

⁷ University of Zielona Góra, Institute of Environmental Engineering, 65-417 Zielona Góra, Poland

⁸ Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, NO-1431 Ås, Norway

⁹ University College Dublin, School of Agriculture and Food Science, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland

¹⁰ Department of Natural Resources Management and Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural University of Athens, Iera Odos 75, 11855 Athens, Greece

¹¹ International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, A-2444 Laxenburg, Austria

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>