| Key aspects |
Description and number of cases (n = 25) |
Examples of the most representative of each category |
| NRM systems analyzed | Mixed (agroforestry, crops-livestock, crops-livestock-forestry) – 10 | Modernized crop-livestock-forest system based on soil and water conservation measures and diversification (local species and cultivars; Gomes de Almeida and Biaconi 2007) |
| Cash crops – 8 | Traditional Chinampas for the production of vegetables (Merlin 2009) | |
| Basic crops – 1 | Small-scale, multiple cropping systems (Moya et al. 2007) | |
| Livestock - 4 | Conventional vs. organic sheep production (Salcedo and García- Trujillo 2005) | |
| Forestry – 1 | Extraction vs. community managed forestry (Negreros-Castillo et al. 2000) | |
| Aquaculture – 1 | Wetlands in monoculture vs. multiculture (Moctezuma-Malagón et al. 2008) | |
| Type of assessment (longitudinal/cross-sectional) |
Simultaneous, contrasting systems (i.e., reference vs. alternative)
– 19 Longitudinal (same system before and after management changes) – 6 |
Conventional vs. alternative small-scale maize-dairy systems
(Brunett-Pérez et al. 2005) Dairy sheep farm evaluated three times over 10 years of technological change (North and Hewes 2006) |
| Leading institutional evaluator | Academic – 11 | Dehesa (Mediterranean agroforestry system, Gaspar et al. 2009) |
| NGO – 8 | Small-scale lemon production (Orozco and Astier 2007) | |
| Government/extension centre – 3 | Conventional vs. organic cotton (Gomero and Velásquez 2007) | |
| Farm/Farmers group – 3 | Indigenous Coffee Cooperative Unión de Ejidos Majomut, Chiapas (Pérez-Grovas 2000) | |
| Spatial/organizative scale where the evaluation is centered | Plot/ single farm – 2 | Conventional vs. diversified crop-livestock-forestry system in an experimental farm (Gutiérrez-Cedillo et al. 2012) |
| Community – 18 | Tequila production, 27 farms in one community (Bowen and Zapata 2009) | |
| Regional/farmers association – 5 | Organic coffee growers association, 118 farms in one region (Cárdenas-Grajales et al. 2006) | |
| Time length of the alternative system | Short term (< 3 yrs) – 10 | Vineyards in organic transition (Pino-Torres 2007) |
| Medium term (3-5 yrs) – 3 | Conventional vs. organic coffee and agroforestry (Pérez-Grovas 2000) | |
| Long term (> 5 yrs) – 10 | Conventional vs. alternative irrigation system over 20 years (Ocampo-Fletes 2004) | |
| N/A – 1 | No alternative system evaluated (Bowen and Zapata 2007) | |
| Degree of participation from farmers | Low – 17 | Farmers not involved in most steps of the evaluation process (Abbona et al. 2007) |
| Medium – 1 | Farmers involved in definition of general sustainability criteria (Pino-Torres 2007) | |
| High – 7 | Farmers involved in design, measurement, and integration of sustainability indicators (Alemán et al. 2007) | |
| Indicators connected to sustainability attributes as defined by MESMIS | Yes – 19No – 6 |
Use of all seven sustainability attributes defined by MESMIS (Aguirre and
Chiappe 2009) Indicators derived from technological, economic, and social criteria (Salcedo and García-Trujillo 2005) |
| Integration of results using multicriteria representation techniques | AMOEBA/qualitative integration – 24 | Use of AMOEBA graphs to present results (Duarte-Silveira 2005) |
| Modeling – 1 | Linear programming used to define “ideal” system (Costa and Poeta 2008) | |
| Multiple evaluation cycles |
No – 22 Yes – 3 |
Agrosilvopastoral alternative systems based on multicropping evaluated after four years (Astier et al. 2007) |
| Main results | Alternative system more sustainable – 15Mixed results – 3Reference system more sustainable – 3N/A – 4 |
Improved yields and income, more stable production, increased participation
(Alemán et al. 2007) Traditional system had higher cost-benefit ratio, similar income and lower agrochemical use (Merlín 2009) Increased labor efficiency, but reduced productivity (North and Hewes 2006) No alternative system (Orozco and Astier 2007) |