Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 346

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development

Open access
Kanter, David R., Musumba, Mark, Wood, Sylvia L.R., Palm, Cheryl, Antle, John, Balvanera, Patricia, Dale, Virginia H., Havlik, Petr, Kline, Keith L., Scholes, R.J., Thornton, Philip, Tittonell, Pablo, Andelman, Sandy·2018·Agricultural Systems

Abstract

A vibrant, resilient and productive agricultural sector is fundamental to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Bringing about such a transformation requires optimizing a range of agronomic, environmental and socioeconomic outcomes from agricultural systems – from crop yields, to biodiversity, to human nutrition. However, these outcomes are not independent of each other – they interact in both positive and negative ways, creating the potential for synergies and trade-offs. Consequently, transforming the agricultural sector for the age of sustainable development requires tracking these interactions, assessing if objectives are being achieved and allowing for adaptive management within the diverse agricultural systems that make up global agriculture. This paper reviews the field of agricultural trade-off analysis, which has emerged to better understand these interactions – from field to farm, region to continent. Taking a “cradle-to-grave” approach, we distill agricultural trade-off analysis into four steps: 1) characterizing the decision setting and identifying the context-specific indicators needed to assess agricultural sustainability, 2) selecting the methods for generating indicator values across different scales, 3) deciding on the means of evaluating and communicating the trade-off options with stakeholders and decision-makers, and 4) improving uptake of trade-off analysis outputs by decision-makers. Given the breadth of the Sustainable Development Goals and the importance of agriculture to many of them, we assess notions of human well-being beyond income or direct health concerns (e.g. related to gender, equality, nutrition), as well as diverse environmental indicators ranging from soil health to biodiversity to climate forcing. Looking forward, areas of future work include integrating the four steps into a single modeling platform and connecting tools across scales and disciplines to facilitate trade-off analysis. Likewise, enhancing the policy relevance of agricultural trade-off analysis requires improving scientist-stakeholder engagement in the research process. Only then can this field proactively address trade-off issues that are integral to sustainably intensifying local and global agriculture – a critical step toward successfully implementing the Sustainable Development Goals.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.010

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Cited by

See all 346

Metadata

Authors
Kanter, D. R., Musumba, M., Wood, S. L. R., Palm, C., Antle, J., Balvanera, P., Dale, V. H., Havlik, P., Kline, K. L., Scholes, R. J., Thornton, P., Tittonell, P., & Andelman, S.
Venue
Agricultural Systems
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
163
Pages
73-88
ISSN
0308-521X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2536993208
Cited by
346
References
15
FWCI
10.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.010
The paper
Kanter, D. R., Musumba, M., Wood, S. L. R., Palm, C., Antle, J., Balvanera, P., Dale, V. H., Havlik, P., Kline, K. L., Scholes, R. J., Thornton, P., Tittonell, P., & Andelman, S. (2018). Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development. Agricultural Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.010

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.