sustainability

Review
Research on Environmental, Economic, and Social
Sustainability in Dairy Farming: A Systematic
Mapping of Current Literature
Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist 1, * , Helena Hansson 2 , Ulf Sonesson 3 and
Stefan Gunnarsson 1
1 Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU),
P.O. Box 234, S-53223 Skara, Sweden; [email protected]
2 Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), P.O. Box 7013,
S-75007 Uppsala, Sweden; [email protected]
3 RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, P.O. Box 5401, S-40229 Göteborg, Sweden; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +46-511-671-44




Received: 3 June 2020; Accepted: 1 July 2020; Published: 8 July 2020


Abstract: Dairy cows are able to convert fibrous materials, such as grass, roughage, and by-products
from the food industry, into milk and meat, which justifies their role in food production. However,
modern dairy farming is associated with major sustainability challenges, including greenhouse gas
emissions. In order to develop sustainable future production, it is important to implement existing
knowledge and fill knowledge gaps. The aim of this study was to systematically map the scientific
literature on environmental, economic, and social sustainability at farm level in dairy farming.
Literature published between January 2000 and March 2020 and with the geographical focus on
Europe, North America, and Australia–New Zealand was included. In total, the literature search
resulted in 169 hits, but after removing duplicates and papers outside the study scope only 35 papers
remained. Of these, only 11 dealt with the three dimensions of sustainability, and several of these
only mentioned one or two of the dimensions or set them in relation to that/those actually studied.
Overall, the selected literature did not clearly explain how aspects of sustainability are interlinked,
so possible negative or positive interactions between different aspects of sustainability dimensions
remain unidentified.

Keywords: dairy cow; animal welfare; ecology; life cycle assessment; sustainable production

1. Introduction
In 2018, there were over 290 million dairy cows worldwide, producing almost 700 million tonnes
of milk [1]. India has the greatest number of dairy cows in the world, over 50 million (17.6% of
the global dairy cow population), but the United States of America is the largest producer of milk,
producing over 98 million tonnes per year (14% of world milk production [1]). Comparing global
regions, Europe accounts for 32% of world production, the Americas for 27%, Asia for 31%, Africa
for 5%, and Oceania for 4% [1]. Cow’s milk is a valuable source of nutrients, providing humans with
energy, protein, essential minerals, and vitamins. In addition, dairy farming provides the main income
for many farmers around the world. As such, dairy farming contributes to several of the 17 global
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) set by the United Nations, including SDG1: Zero hunger,
SDG3: Good health and wellbeing, and SDG8: Decent work and economic growth [2,3]. However,
dairy farming may also jeopardize other SDGs, including SDG13: Climate action and SDG15: Life on
land. Global average whole-milk consumption in 2017 was 88 kg per person, with very significant
differences between countries/regions. Per capita consumption in Western Europe was almost 270 kg

Sustainability 2020, 12, 5502; doi:10.3390/su12145502 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 5502 2 of 14

of milk per person in that year, compared with 35 kg in Africa [1]. With more than 70% of global
agricultural land already being used to produce feed for livestock [4], there are limited possibilities to
increase the area of arable land. Hence, it is increasingly important to use non-human edible products
as animal feed and to increasingly utilize areas for animal feed that cannot be used for production of
foods that are directly edible to humans. Cattle are able to convert fibrous materials, such as roughage
and other grass from permanent grasslands and by-products from the food industry into milk and
meat, which justifies their role in food production [5].
Nevertheless, modern dairy farming is associated with major sustainability challenges. One of
the most pressing is emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to the atmosphere. Methane (CH4 )
production from gastroenteric fermentation in dairy cows is not only an energy loss for the animal,
but also a contributor to GHG emissions [6]. Around 6% of gross energy intake in dairy cows is
lost as CH4 , of which approximately 95% is lost via the mouth and 2–3% through feces [7]. Enteric
CH4 is responsible for around 50% of all GHG emissions along the production chain of milk in
Western countries, and an even higher percentage in developing countries with low-yielding cows [8].
Other important GHG contributions are emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) and nitrous oxide (N2 O) [9].
In addition, dairy farming can have major adverse impacts on watercourses due to nitrogen and
phosphorus emissions from manure spreading and from over-grazed fields. Production of feed
involves environmental impact and resource use, with the severity depending on the crop production
system and local conditions [10,11]. From a societal perspective, there is also increasing concern about
the welfare of farm animals [12,13], including dairy cows. At the same time, economic margins in dairy
production are generally slim.
Over the past decade, growing recognition of the environmental challenges caused by agricultural
production, continuous economic competition resulting in decreasing farm income, and animal welfare
concerns have resulted in increasing interest in sustainable animal food production [14]. A sustainable
production system is characterized by inclusion of the different dimensions of sustainability, i.e.,
environmental, economic, and social. In 1987, the Brundtland Commission [15] defined sustainable
development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs”. Sustainable agriculture has been defined as the
management and use of agricultural ecosystems in a way that maintains, both today and in the
future, biological diversity, regeneration capacity, vitality, and productivity [16]. It also aims to
achieve significant ecological, economic, and social functions at local, national, and global level, and
does not harm ecosystems [16]. Sustainable livestock production has been defined in one study as
“production that is ecologically sound, taking into account the environment and biodiversity, ethically
and economically sustainable” [17], but no universal definition exists. Furthermore, in animal food
production, sustainability includes many ecological issues, since if the environment is damaged it
cannot sustain production that relies on natural systems [16]. However, for the production system
to function, overall economic viability is essential. Agriculture is generally performed by private
businesses, and revenues need to exceed costs, at least over the long term, in order for these firms,
and thereby production, to survive. Neglecting the economic sustainability of agriculture may reduce
interest among stakeholders in taking necessary actions to improve environmental performance
and social conditions. Farmers’ quality of life or sense of wellbeing is influenced by, among other
factors, social and technical relations within production [18,19], and thus the social sustainability
dimension of farming considers farmers’ quality of life. Social sustainability can also be related to
acceptance by society of agricultural practices. Societal concerns about farm animal welfare [12,13]
is one important aspect of this, as it links directly to human thoughts and feelings about livestock
production. Agriculture is often considered by policy makers to be the main driver of rural economic
development and growth, so it is also expected to contribute to the social sustainability of rural
communities. Sustainability of agriculture is therefore truly an outcome of the three dimensions of
sustainable development.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5502 3 of 14

Valentin and Spangenberg [20] highlighted a fourth dimension of sustainability, namely

institutional sustainability. While social sustainability refers to human capital and capabilities,
institutional sustainability can be defined as the human interactions and the rules under which they
are governed [20]. However, since this fourth dimension of sustainability is rarely mentioned in other
literature this paper focus on environmental, economic, and social sustainability.
To date, much research has been devoted to sustainability and different dimensions of sustainability
in dairy farming. However, the process of developing more sustainable future dairy production
systems would benefit from an overview of the current state of knowledge in this area of research,
including how the concept of sustainability is perceived. This would serve as a useful basis for
highlighting important knowledge gaps and for prioritizing future actions and research initiatives.
To our knowledge, there have been no previous attempts to map current knowledge on sustainability in
dairy farming in a systematic way. The aim of this study was thus to systematically map the scientific
literature on farm-level sustainability in dairy production. In order to limit the scope, the analysis was
restricted to studies conducted in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand, which enabled
comparisons of production systems located in similar economic contexts.

2. Materials and Methods

The work presented in this paper is part of a larger project, other findings from which have been
published previously [21,22].

2.1. Definition of Fundamental Concepts within Sustainability

Sustainability is a holistic concept, but it needs to be split into different dimensions that can be
analyzed empirically, which in turn provide a basis for further scientific analyses on a higher level,
e.g., to investigate possible negative or positive interactions between different aspects of sustainability.
When evaluating the sustainability of a specific production system, it is important to include all these
different dimensions (environmental, economic, and social). In this study, the three dimensions of
sustainability were defined as follows:

2.1.1. Environmental Sustainability

The environmental dimension of sustainability is a natural science-based aspect that, basically,
includes the total impact human activities may have on the ecosystems. Life cycle analysis (LCA) is
the most commonly used approach for quantification of the environmental impact. It concerns the
flows of resources (energy, land, water etc.) to the production system and emissions from the system
and quantifies potential impacts. All environmental impacts caused by emissions, at all levels, should
be included as well as the perspective of resource availability both locally, regionally, and globally.
The focus of environmental sustainability assessments should be the effect of total production and not
the organizational boundaries, i.e., all flows to and from production systems needs to be accounted
for, regardless of economic ownership [23]. In addition to LCA, there are other methods assessing
the environmental impact. In essence, most are similar in terms of the basic principles, but may use
different approaches for describing the impacts. As an example, in the ecological footprint approach,
all emissions and resources used are converted into “hypothetical area used”, generating a common
unit for the environmental impact of single products, which makes communication and comparison of
differences between systems easier [24].

2.1.2. Economic Sustainability

From a theoretical perspective, economic sustainability can be considered in two ways. One focuses
on the sustainable use of natural resources within a defined economic system, meaning that economic
sustainability is achieved when the economic activity is not undertaken at the cost of natural resources.
This economic concept of external effects is useful in understanding and fully capturing costs associated
with production. The other way of considering economic sustainability focuses on growth of the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5502 4 of 14

economic system. Basically, this implies that in order to achieve economic sustainability, there must be
a return on capital invested in the firm. When it comes to evaluation of natural and economic capital,
there are two different approaches: weak and strong sustainability [25,26]. In weak sustainability,
the sum of those two types of capital is combined, whereas in strong sustainability natural and
economic capital are evaluated separately [26]. There is no clear consensus on how best to measure
economic sustainability [27]. However, the sustainability accounting standards produced by the Global
Reporting Initiatives [28] provide some guidance on which aspects to consider. In terms of economic
indicators, these standards include aspects such as costs, revenues, profit, and investments.

2.1.3. Social Sustainability

Social sustainability is the least well defined and most often overlooked dimension of
sustainability [29]. Social sustainability can be defined as the development of social structures
and processes that meet the needs of the present in a community at the same time as laying a foundation
for the community to continue to develop in a sustainable way in the future. In this study, the social
dimension of sustainability included aspects such as community development, community resilience,
livelihood, social equity, health equity, and labor rights. Aspects not directly associated with human
societies, such as animal health and welfare, were also included in this dimension.

2.2. Systematic Mapping Approach

For the present analysis, we applied a systematic mapping approach, also known as evidence gap
mapping. Systematic mapping is a transparent, robust, and repeatable method used to identify, collect,
and assort relevant literature concerning a particular research topic [30]. It provides a structured
overview of the research area [31], but without aiming to synthesize or further process the study
results [32]. Instead, the method serves to identify and gather the published knowledge within a given
research area and to indicate knowledge gaps where future research is needed. In contrast, a systematic
review aims to answer a specific research question [32] through gathering relevant literature, further
synthesizing the results using an appropriate methodology, e.g., meta-analysis [31,32], and specifically
identifying knowledge gaps. However, the latter was beyond the scope of the current work. In this
study, the systematic mapping approach was complemented with an approach whereby we extracted
data from the set of papers reviewed to describe how sustainability dimensions considered in each
paper were identified. Using a template, extracted keywords were defined and categorized to get an
overview of aspects studied.

2.3. Literature Search

A comprehensive search of available online literature databases was conducted to obtain
an impartial selection of published literature. To identify relevant papers, the online databases
Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and CABI (https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/
webofscience-cab-abstracts/): Cab Abstracts were used. The searches were limited to papers published
between January 1, 2000 and March 20, 2020.
To find relevant papers in relation to dairy farming, the following search terms were used: “(‘dairy
cow*’ Or ‘dairy herd*’ Or ‘dairy cattle’ Or (milk* W/2 herd*))”. These were then combined with search
terms for environmental, economic, and social sustainability (Table 1), which were defined through an
iterative process by all co-authors, in collaboration with a university librarian. The co-authors have
expertise in different areas and could thus identify search terms and indicators usually used in relation
to the three sustainability dimensions. In Scopus, the search was made within the search field “Title,
Abstract, Keywords”. In Web of Science Core Collection and CABI: Cab Abstracts, the searches were
made within “Topic”, which includes title, abstract, and keywords.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5502 5 of 14

Table 1. Library search terms used to locate papers dealing with on-farm environmental, economic,
and social sustainability in dairy farming.

Sustainability Dimension Search Terms 1

(“environmental impact assessment” OR (environment* W/2 assessment)
OR (environment* W/2 impact) OR (environment* W/2 protection) OR
(climate W/1 change*) OR biodiversity OR ecosystem* OR pollution OR
deforestation OR eutrophication OR (habitat W/2 destruction) OR (land
Environmental W/2 degradation) OR (ozone W/2 depletion) OR “acid deposition” OR
(odour W/2 emission) OR “air quality” OR “biochemical oxygen
demand*” OR “chemical oxygen demand*” OR (nitrogen W/2 balance)
OR (nitrogen W/2 cycle) OR (carbon W/2 cycle) OR eco-toxicity OR
“carbon footprint” OR LCA OR “life cycle assessment”)
((agricultur* W/2 development) OR (agricultur* W/2 production) OR
(farm* W/2 comparison*) OR (farm W/2 entrant*) OR (farm W/2 result*)
OR (farm W/2 development) OR production OR diversification OR
Economic
intensification OR “technical efficiency” OR “economic efficiency” OR
“eco-efficiency” OR profit OR econom* OR return OR ”economic
viability” OR ”economic performance”)
((attitude* W/2 work) OR labour OR labor OR (quality W/2 life) OR
“living condition*” OR “rural welfare” OR (work* W/2 condition*) OR
“rural development” OR “social welfare” OR “social security” OR
“social service*” OR “social equity” OR (health W/2 service*) OR “social
Social
status” OR (women W/2 status) OR “equal right*” OR equality OR
(rural W/2 employment) OR livability OR “health equity” OR “labour
rights” OR “labor rights” OR “social justice” OR “social capital” OR
(community W/2 development) OR (community W/2 resilience))
1 The Boolean operator W was used for the search in Scopus, while the Boolean operator NEAR was used for the
searches in Web of Science Core Collection and CABI: CAB Abstracts.

The results of the searches were imported into the reference management software EndNote X8TM .
For each search in the three databases, a separate library was made, and the number of references
found was recorded. After the searches were complete, the libraries were merged into one single
library. Any duplicates were removed using the automatic function in the EndNote X8TM software.
The retrieved library was then manually searched for papers relevant to sustainability in dairy farming.
Only full-length, trial-based papers were included, i.e., literature reviews, book chapters, conference
papers, and organization reports were excluded. This to ensure that only original, peer reviewed
papers were included. Further, the full-length papers had to be written in English to be included.
In addition to ensuring that the articles addressed sustainability (single dimensions or a combination
of dimensions), a geographical limitation was also set, whereby only studies conducted in Europe,
North America, and Australia–New Zealand were included, to enable a focus on studies conducted
on production systems in similar economic contexts. Exclusion due to publication type, language,
or geographical origin was performed manually and was not set up in the searches.
Using a template, data were extracted from the abstracts of the hits identified, in order to describe
aspects of the three sustainability dimensions dealt with in each paper. In the template, keywords used
in each study to describe sustainability were defined and categorized. The full text of selected papers
that listed aspects of the dimensions of sustainability in the abstract was analyzed in order to assess
the actual scientific content on the three dimensions, i.e., to determine whether all dimensions were
empirically studied.

3. Results
The literature search resulted in a total of 169 hits, of which 101 (60%) originated from CABI:
Cab Abstracts, 36 (21%) originated from Web of Science Core Collection, and 32 (19%) originated
from Scopus. After removing duplicates and articles that did not match the scope of the study, i.e.,
non-peer-reviewed reports, book chapters, conference abstracts, review papers, and papers not written
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5502 6 of 14

in English, there remained a total of 35 papers, which were categorized in terms of sustainability
dimensions and analyzed in the systematic mapping process (Table 2, Appendix A). A majority of
these (28/35 papers) originated from Europe, while five originated from North America and two from
Australia–New Zealand.

Table 2. Categorization of the set of 35 papers included in systematic mapping in terms of their
coverage of the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability in dairy farming

Sustainability Dimensions
No. Author/s 1
Environmental Economic Sociala
1. Alvåsen et al., 2018 x
2. Câmara et al., 2001 x
3. Chen and Holden, 2017 x
4. Einarsson et al., 2018 x
5. Fairweather et al., 2009
6. Filson et al., 2003 x x x
7. Flaten, 2002 x x
8. Groot et al., 2012 x x
9. Hessle et al., 2017 x x
10. Kiley-Worthington, 2014 x x x
11. Klootwijk et al., 2016 x x x
12. Konovalchuk et al., 2008 x x
13. Lehtonen, 2015 x x x
14. Lengers et al., 2014 x x
15. Marton et al., 2016 x x x
16. Meng, 2015 x x x
17. Meul et al., 2012 x x x
18. Mosnier et al., 2017 x x x
19. Nordborg et al., 2017 x
20. Noyes et al., 2016 x
21. Oudshoorn et al., 2012 x x x
22. Paudel et al., 2004 x x
23. Rebhann et al., 2016 x x x
24. Röös et al., 2016a x x x
25. Röös et al., 2016b x x
26. Sandu et al., 2014 x
27. Sasu-Boakye et al., 2014 x
28 van Calker et al., 2004 x x
29. van Calker et al., 2005 x x x
30. van Middelaar et al., 2013 x x
31. van Middelaar et al., 2014a x x
32. van Middelaar et al., 2014b x x
33. van Middelaar et al., 2015 x x
34. van Passel et al., 2007 x x
35. Vigne et al., 2013 x
Total 30 23 18
1 For full references, see Appendix A.

The papers were assessed regarding environmental, economic, and social sustainability and
whether one, two, or all three dimensions were covered within each article. However, during the
mapping process it was found that aspects of the different sustainability dimensions were only
mentioned briefly in some papers, e.g., in the abstract or introduction, without actually being part of
the study. In other papers, one or two dimensions were actually measured and analyzed, and the third
was discussed in relation to those studied. Only around one-third (31%) of the 35 papers in the final
set actually included the three dimensions in the same study.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5502 7 of 14

During the reading process, data describing aspects of the sustainability dimensions that were
studied in each paper were extracted and categorized (Figure 1).
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14

Figure 1.1.Categorized
Figure Categorizedkeywords
keywords based
based on data
on data extracted
extracted from papers
from papers covering,
covering, or mentioning,
or mentioning, different
different
aspects ofaspects of sustainability
sustainability in dairy farming.
in dairy farming.

Regarding
Regarding environmental
environmental sustainability,
sustainability,thethemain
mainfocus
focusininthe
the 30
30 papers
papers covering
covering this
this dimension
dimension
was
was on on climate
climate impact
impact (GHG(GHG emissions)
emissions) and and nutrient
nutrient balance,
balance, including
including manure
manure handling
handling andand
fertilization regimes.
fertilization regimes. Factors studied in relation to GHG emissions were most often different
different feeding
strategies,
strategies, but genetic traits were were included
included in oneone study.
study. Energy
Energy use
use and
and renewable
renewable energy
energy sources
sources
were
were also
also studied,
studied,butbut to
to aa lesser
lesser extent.
extent. One paper reported
reported studies
studies onon how to integrate farming
farming with
with
wildlife
wildlife conservation.
conservation.
In
In the
the 23
23 papers
papers covering
covering economic
economic sustainability,
sustainability, itit was
was often
often measured
measured asas labor
labor income
income in in
different
different production
production systems,
systems, using different feeding strategies and in relation to policy changes.
Production
Productioncosts costsfor
for grass
grass andand cereals
cereals were
were linked
linked to
to animal productivity
productivity in in some
some studies.
studies. In addition,
some
some studies
studies calculated
calculated the
the cost
cost per tonnes of CO22 emissions under different scenarios. In In one
one study,
study,
the opportunity cost of land if oat drink were to be produced instead of cow’s
the opportunity cost of land if oat drink were to be produced instead of cow’s milk was calculated. milk was calculated.
AA wide
wide variety
variety of
of social
social sustainability
sustainability aspects were included
included in the the 18
18 papers
papers that
that covered
covered this
this
dimension.
dimension. Aspects raised by several studies were labor (both requirement and efficiency), efficiency), working
working
conditions
conditions (work load, working hours), and farmers’ income. Other Other aspects
aspects raised
raised were
were food safety,
nutritional composition of
nutritional composition ofthe
themilk,
milk,the
theattitude
attitude ofof society
society to to farming,
farming, andand consumer
consumer wiliness
wiliness to
to pay
pay for products
for products with with
added added benefits,
benefits, e.g.,from
e.g., milk milkgrazing
from grazing
cows. Incows. In addition,
addition, policyand
policy making making
how
and
newhow newaffect
policies policies
farmaffect farm structure,
structure, management, management,
and laborand laborwere
income income were Farmers’
studied. studied. attitudes
Farmers’
attitudes
and the and the factors
factors on which on which they base
they base different
different decisions
decisions werewere mentioned.One
mentioned. Onepaper
paper dealt
dealt with
with
antimicrobial
antimicrobial resistance.
resistance.
Six
Six of
of the
the papers
papers inin the set included
included animal
animal welfare
welfare asas part
part of
of the
the sustainability
sustainability concept.
concept. Aspects
covered
covered by bythese
thesepapers
papers wereweregrazing regimes,
grazing animal
regimes, longevity,
animal use ofuse
longevity, growth hormones,
of growth and societal
hormones, and
concerns about animal
societal concerns aboutwelfare.
animal welfare.
Almost half (49%) of the 35 papers included were based on modelling and/or scenario analyses
(Figure 2). The majority (83%) of these studies considered the present day as the time perspective, 9%
were future looking, 6% compared the past with the present, and 3% considered the situation before
and after a change.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5502 8 of 14

Almost half (49%) of the 35 papers included were based on modelling and/or scenario analyses
(Figure 2). The majority (83%) of these studies considered the present day as the time perspective,
9% were future looking, 6% compared the past with the present, and 3% considered the situation
before and after2020,
Sustainability a change.
12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14

2 Modelling, scenario analysis

1
4
Life cycle analysis

Questionnaire, interview,
survey, focus groups
5 19
On farm studies,
comparison between farms
Social life cycle assessment

Data analysis
8

Figure 2. Type of study conducted in the 35 papers included in the systematic mapping. Some individual
papers comprised
Figure 2. Typeseveral types conducted
of study of studies, and therefore
in the appear
35 papers in several
included categories.
in the systematic mapping. Some
individual
4. Discussion papers comprised several types of studies, and therefore appear in several categories.
and Conclusions
Using a systematic
4. Discussion mapping approach provided a good overview of the currently available
and Conclusions
scientific literature on sustainability in dairy production, including the environmental, economic,
Using a systematic mapping approach provided a good overview of the currently available
and social dimensions of sustainable development, and of the current state of knowledge within this
scientific literature on sustainability in dairy production, including the environmental, economic, and
research area. This provided a basis for discussing knowledge gaps and priority areas for future
social dimensions of sustainable development, and of the current state of knowledge within this
research. We found that only 11 of the 35 papers in the final set analyzed the three sustainability
research area. This provided a basis for discussing knowledge gaps and priority areas for future
dimensions within dairy production. Although sustainability has been an important topic of discussion
research. We found that only 11 of the 35 papers in the final set analyzed the three sustainability
since the Brundtland report [15] was published more than 30 years ago and although dairy farming is
dimensions within dairy production. Although sustainability has been an important topic of
an important part of livestock production in many countries, there have been surprisingly few studies
discussion since the Brundtland report [15] was published more than 30 years ago and although dairy
covering the three dimensions of sustainability simultaneously. However, papers covering one or
farming is an important part of livestock production in many countries, there have been surprisingly
two sustainability dimensions were more common. Dairy farming today is associated with major
few studies covering the three dimensions of sustainability simultaneously. However, papers
sustainability challenges, mostly in relation to the environment due to the GHG emissions. This was
covering one or two sustainability dimensions were more common. Dairy farming today is associated
reflected in the number of papers dealing with environmental sustainability, as 30 of the 35 papers
with major sustainability challenges, mostly in relation to the environment due to the GHG
analyzed studied aspects relating to environmental impact. Economic sustainability (23/35 papers)
emissions. This was reflected in the number of papers dealing with environmental sustainability, as
was studied to a larger extent than social sustainability (18/35 papers). Social sustainability was also
30 of the 35 papers analyzed studied aspects relating to environmental impact. Economic
more commonly covered or mentioned in association with one or both of the other two dimensions
sustainability (23/35 papers) was studied to a larger extent than social sustainability (18/35 papers).
rather than on its own.
Social sustainability was also more commonly covered or mentioned in association with one or both
In the systematic mapping approach, the search terms are carefully defined in an iterative process
of the other two dimensions rather than on its own.
to enable maximum coverage of the published scientific literature within the area of the study. However,
In the systematic mapping approach, the search terms are carefully defined in an iterative
even though we included search terms for the three dimensions of sustainability in our searches,
process to enable maximum coverage of the published scientific literature within the area of the
we found that only a small proportion of the search hits actually dealt with environmental, economic,
study. However, even though we included search terms for the three dimensions of sustainability in
and social sustainability in the same study. There may of course be additional studies that have covered
our searches, we found that only a small proportion of the search hits actually dealt with
these issues, but which did not appear among the hits as they may not have contained the exact words
environmental, economic, and social sustainability in the same study. There may of course be
used in our search strings. Creating a search string that is specific enough to locate relevant papers and
additional studies that have covered these issues, but which did not appear among the hits as they
that is also fully inclusive is a challenge, and hence no literature search is complete. Thus, there may
may not have contained the exact words used in our search strings. Creating a search string that is
have been relevant papers that were not located in our searches. However, since the search strings
specific enough to locate relevant papers and that is also fully inclusive is a challenge, and hence no
used can be considered comprehensive, the searches most likely identified the majority of studies
literature search is complete. Thus, there may have been relevant papers that were not located in our
dealing with sustainability within dairy production.
searches. However, since the search strings used can be considered comprehensive, the searches most
Considering the definitions of sustainability in dairy farming, a major challenge was the very wide
likely identified the majority of studies dealing with sustainability within dairy production.
range of aspects used in the different papers in relation to the sustainability dimensions. For example,
Considering the definitions of sustainability in dairy farming, a major challenge was the very
wide range of aspects used in the different papers in relation to the sustainability dimensions. For
example, the term “environmental sustainability” was used in different papers to describe studies
covering everything from full-scale LCA to anaerobic reactor performance when digesting dairy
manure. Regarding social sustainability, there is no uniform definition of this dimension, which was
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5502 9 of 14

the term “environmental sustainability” was used in different papers to describe studies covering
everything from full-scale LCA to anaerobic reactor performance when digesting dairy manure.
Regarding social sustainability, there is no uniform definition of this dimension, which was reflected
in the even wider variety of aspects found in the papers analyzed. The variety of aspects studied in
relation to the different sustainability dimensions makes it complicated to compare between studies,
both due to the many different aspects and to the different approaches used in the included papers.
One priority area for future research should be to develop a nomenclature to define and categorize
various aspects of the sustainability dimensions. This would help to make better comparisons between
studies and to draw further conclusions.
As can be seen in Table 1, animal welfare was not initially included among our search terms
as an aspect of social sustainability, but it was added during the mapping process. Animal welfare
is a multifaceted concept that can be argued as a part of both environmental, economic, and social
sustainability. For example, improved animal health (which leads to reduced use of antibiotics) is
not only important for the animal itself, but also for environmental sustainability (increased resource
efficiency, reduced drug residues, and resistant bacteria in soil), economic sustainability (reduced
costs and increased productivity), and social sustainability (public health, product quality, and food
safety) [33,34]. It should perhaps be added as an additional dimension of sustainability. However,
the public is increasingly aware of animal welfare [12,13] and is thus closely linked to the societal view
of animal production. Further, as animals are living individuals, which are part of the social system on
farms as well as the society as whole, the concept can be considered to relate to social sustainability.
Hence, in this study we included animal welfare in the social dimension of sustainability. It is also
important to bear in mind that other aspects of sustainable development may be connected to each
other in similar ways. During the reading process for this study, it became apparent that the current
literature does not describe or consider these interrelations or discuss possible negative or positive
interactions between different aspects of sustainability dimensions. This is an important area for
future research.
Institutional, or governance, sustainability has been identified as a fourth dimension of
sustainability [20]. Dairy farming, including both crop production and animal husbandry, is regulated
both at national and international level. Hence, it is valuable to also include the institutional or
governance dimension when studying sustainability in relation to dairy farming. None of the papers
included in the systematic mapping have mentioned this dimension, let alone included it in the study.
However, a number of the studies have included aspects such as policies within the framework of
social sustainability, although policies clearly should be included in institutional sustainability.
Almost half of the papers analyzed were based on modelling or scenario analysis. This is
an efficient approach to investigate how different management regimes, both feeding regimes and
fertilization regimes, will affect, e.g., the economic outcome or the environmental impact. However, it is
important that the data used as input to the calculations are valid and up-to-date, so that representative
estimates can be obtained. This is important both from an environmental, economic, and social
perspective. In agriculture, conditions vary between countries, and between regions within countries,
in terms of climate (e.g., temperature, precipitation), soil type, etc. Further, different countries have
different laws and regulations that affect the dairy production in general and perhaps the economy
in particular. This makes it even more important to ensure that the data used is valid for the type of
production and for the conditions where the results will be applied. Otherwise, the actions based on
the outcomes may not achieve their full potential in efforts to achieve sustainable dairy production.
When working on the systematic mapping, we identified a number of aspects that can provide a
basis for identifying research gaps and prioritizing future actions. The aim of the study was not to
create and extensive list of actions that need to be taken, which would require a systematic review of
the literature, but there are three issues worth highlighting.
First, it is evident that the number of published studies that actually cover both environmental,
economic, and social sustainability simultaneously on farm level is low. We found that 11 of the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5502 10 of 14

35 papers included in the systematic mapping included the three dimensions of sustainability, but in
several of these cases one or two of the dimensions were only mentioned in passing or in relation to
that/those actually studied. In addition, almost half the papers included in final set were based on
modelling or scenario analyses. This indicates a need for more holistic assessments of sustainability in
dairy farming and empirical applications of such methods.
Second, during the mapping process it emerged that a very wide range of aspects are used in the
literature to describe different aspects of sustainability at farm level. Further, none of the studies had
included the institutional dimension of sustainability, but some of the studies included aspects related
to this dimension within the social dimension instead. This makes it difficult to compare different
studies and to combine results to get a broader picture. The contribution of previous research is highly
valuable, but future studies should take a more comprehensive approach, i.e., include the different
dimensions of sustainability within the same study and consider how different aspects of sustainability
in dairy farming are best measured, based on a conceptual understanding of sustainability. A common,
standardized vocabulary would allow comparison of studies to a greater extent. Further, a standardized
way of measuring different aspects of sustainability could lead to a wider area of application for
data obtained.
Third, it is not yet well understood how different aspects of the sustainability dimensions
are interlinked, and possible positive or negative interactions between them remain unidentified.
Knowledge of these interactions would be valuable when seeking to determine how individual aspects
of sustainability can be promoted and how the whole system at farm level can be improved.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.G., H.H., U.S., K.A.S. and Investigation, K.A.S.; Data Curation,
K.A.S.; Formal Analysis, K.A.S.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, K.A.S.; Review and Editing, H.H., U.S.,
and S.G.; Funding Acquisition, S.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The Swedish Research Council, Formas, grant number 2017-02017, funded this research.
Acknowledgments: We thank Mattias Lennartsson, librarian at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
for valuable help during the process of developing the search strings.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.

Appendix A
Papers included in the systematic mapping:

1. Alvåsen, K.; Dohoo, I.; Roth, A.; Emanuelson, U. Farm characteristics and management routines
related to cow longevity: A survey among Swedish dairy farmers. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica
2018, 60, 38, doi:10.1186/s13028-018-0390-8.
2. Câmara, E.E.G.; Duarte, E.A.; Ferreira, L. Overall assessment of environmental impacts of animal
production in Portugal. Anais do Instituto Superior de Agronomia 2001, 48, 9–40. Available online:
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/16099 (accessed on 2 April 2020)
3. Chen, W.; Holden, N.M. Social life cycle assessment of average Irish dairy farm. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2017, 22, 1459-1472, doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1250-2.
4. Einarsson, R.; Cederberg, C.; Kallus, J. Nitrogen flows on organic and conventional dairy
farms: A comparison of three indicators. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 2018, 110, 25–38,
doi:10.1007/s10705-017-9861-y.
5. Fairweather, J.R.; Hunt, L.M.; Rosin, C.J.; Campbell, H.R. Are Conventional Farmers Conventional?
Analysis of the Environmental Orientations of Conventional New Zealand Farmers. Rural Sociology
2009, 74, 430–454, doi:10.1526/003601109789037222.
6. Filson, G.C.; Pfeiffer, W.C.; Paine, C.; Taylor, J.R. The Relationship Between Grand River Dairy
Farmers’ Quality of Life and Economic, Social and Environmental Aspects of Their Farming
Systems. J. Sustain. Agriculture 2003, 22, 61–77, doi:10.1300/J064v22n01_05.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5502 11 of 14

7. Flaten, O. Alternative rates of structural change in Norwegian dairy farming: impacts on

costs of production and rural employment. Journal of Rural Studies 2002, 18, 429–441, doi:
10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00031-1.
8. Groot, J.C.J.; Oomen, G.J.M.; Rossing, W.A.H. Multi-objective optimization and design of farming
systems. Agricultural Systems 2012, 110, 63–77, doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2012.03.012.
9. Hessle, A.; Bertilsson, J.; Stenberg, B.; Kumm, K.-I.; Sonesson, U. Combining environmentally
and economically sustainable dairy and beef production in Sweden. Agricultural Systems 2017,
156, 105–114, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.06.004.
10. Kiley-Worthington, M. Ecological Agriculture. Integrating Low Input, High Productive Farming
with Wildlife Conservation. Results from the Experimental Farm La Combe, Drome France.
Open Journal of Ecology 2014, 4, 744–763, doi:10.4236/oje.2014.412064.
11. Klootwijk, C.W.; Van Middelaar, C.E.; Berentsen, P.B.M.; de Boer, I.J.M. Dutch dairy farms after
milk quota abolition: Economic and environmental consequences of a new manure policy. Journal
of dairy science 2016, 99, 8384–8396, doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-10781.
12. Konovalchuk, V.; Hanson, G.D.; Luloff, A.E. Layered community support for sustainable
dairy farming. Journal of Extension 2008, 46, 6FEA3. Available online: https://www.joe.org/joe/
2008december/a3.php (accessed on 2 April 2020)
13. Lehtonen, H.S. Evaluating adaptation and the production development of Finnish agriculture in
climate and global change. Agricultural and Food Science 2015, 24, 219-234, doi:10.23986/afsci.51080.
14. Lengers, B.; Britz, W.; Holm-Müller, K. What Drives Marginal Abatement Costs of Greenhouse
Gases on Dairy Farms? A Meta-modelling Approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2014, 65,
579–599, doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12057.
15. Marton, S.M.R.R.; Zimmermann, A.; Kreuzer, M.; Gaillard, G. Environmental and socioeconomic
benefits of a division of labour between lowland and mountain farms in milk production systems.
Agricultural Systems 2016, 149, 1–10, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.07.015.
16. Meng, S. Is the agricultural industry spared from the influence of the Australian carbon tax?
Agricultural Economics 2015, 46, 125–137, doi:10.1111/agec.12145.
17. Meul, M.; Van Passel, S.; Fremaut, D.; Haesaert, G. Higher sustainability performance of intensive
grazing versus zero-grazing dairy systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 2012, 32, 629–638,
doi:10.1007/s13593-011-0074-5.
18. Mosnier, C.; Duclos, A.; Agabriel, J.; Gac, A. Orfee: A bio-economic model to simulate integrated
and intensive management of mixed crop-livestock farms and their greenhouse gas emissions.
Agricultural Systems 2017, 157, 202–215, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.07.005.
19. Nordborg, M.; Sasu-Boakye, Y.; Cederberg, C.; Berndes, G. Challenges in developing regionalized
characterization factors in land use impact assessment: impacts on ecosystem services in case
studies of animal protein production in Sweden. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
2017, 22, 328–345, doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1158-x.
20. Noyes, N.R.; Yang, X.; Linke, L.M.; Magnuson, R.J.; Cook, S.R.; Zaheer, R.; Yang, H.; Woerner, D.R.;
Geornaras, I.; McArt, J.A., et al. Characterization of the resistome in manure, soil and wastewater
from dairy and beef production systems. Scientific Reports 2016, 6, 24645, doi:10.1038/srep24645.
21. Oudshoorn, F.W.; Kristensen, T.; van der Zijpp, A.J.; Boer, I.J.M.d. Sustainability evaluation
of automatic and conventional milking systems on organic dairy farms in Denmark. NJAS -
Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 2012, 59, 25–33, doi:10.1016/j.njas.2011.05.003.
22. Paudel, K.P.; Gauthier, W.M.; Westra, J.V.; Hall, L.M. Dairy programs to reduce manure-related
environmental problems: The case of the Louisiana milkshed. Journal of Environmental Systems
2004, 31, 367–383, doi: 10.2190/ES.31.4.f
23. Rebhann, M.; Karatay, Y.N.; Filler, G.; Prochnow, A. Profitability of Management Systems on
German Fenlands. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1103, doi.org/10.3390/su8111103
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5502 12 of 14

24. Röös, E.; Patel, M.; Spångberg, J. Producing oat drink or cow’s milk on a Swedish farm —
Environmental impacts considering the service of grazing, the opportunity cost of land and the
demand for beef and protein. Agricultural Systems 2016, 142, 23–32, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2015.11.002.
25. Röös, E.; Patel, M.; Spångberg, J.; Carlsson, G.; Rydhmer, L. Limiting livestock production
to pasture and by-products in a search for sustainable diets. Food Policy 2016, 58, 1–13,
doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.10.008.
26. Sandu, M.; Tobǎ, G.F.; Paraschivescu, M.T. Bioeconomical research on biodiversity of animal food
resources in Romania. Romanian Biotechnological Letters 2014, 19, 9597-9604. Available online:
https://e-repository.org/rbl/vol.19/iss.4/16.pdf (accessed 5 April 2020)
27. Sasu-Boakye, Y.; Cederberg, C.; Wirsenius, S. Localising livestock protein feed production
and the impact on land use and greenhouse gas emissions. Animal 2014, 8, 1339–1348,
doi:10.1017/S1751731114001293.
28. van Calker, K.J.; Berentsen, P.B.M.; de Boer, I.M.J.; Giesen, G.W.J.; Huirne, R.B.M. An LP-model
to analyse economic and ecological sustainability on Dutch dairy farms: model presentation
and application for experimental farm “de Marke”. Agricultural Systems 2004, 82, 139–160,
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2004.02.001.
29. van Calker, K.J.; Berentsen, P.B.M.; Giesen, G.W.J.; Huirne, R.B.M. Identifying and ranking
attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agriculture and Human Values
2005, 22, 53–63, doi:10.1007/s10460-004-7230-3.
30. van Middelaar, C.E.; Berentsen, P.B.M.; Dijkstra, J.; De Boer, I.J.M. Evaluation of a feeding strategy
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farming: The level of analysis matters. Agricultural
Systems 2013, 121, 9–22, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2013.05.009
31. van Middelaar, C.E.; Berentsen, P.B.M.; Dijkstra, J.; van Arendonk, J.A.M.; de Boer, I.J.M. Methods
to determine the relative value of genetic traits in dairy cows to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
along the chain. Journal of dairy science 2014, 97, 5191–5205, doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7413.
32. van Middelaar, C.E.; Dijkstra, J.; Berentsen, P.B.; De Boer, I.J. Cost-effectiveness of feeding
strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farming. Journal of dairy science 2014, 97,
2427–2439, doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7648.
33. van Middelaar, C.E.; Berentsen, P.B.M.; Dijkstra, J.; Van Arendonk, J.A.M.; De Boer, I.J.M.
Effect of feed-related farm characteristics on relative values of genetic traits in dairy cows to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions along the chain. Journal of dairy science 2015, 98, 4889–4903,
doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8310.
34. van Passel, S.; Nevens, F.; Mathijs, E.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. Measuring farm sustainability
and explaining differences in sustainable efficiency. Ecological Economics 2007, 62, 149–161,
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.008.
35. Vigne, M.; Vayssières, J.; Lecomte, P.; Peyraud, J.-L. Pluri-energy analysis of livestock systems – A
comparison of dairy systems in different territories. Journal of Environmental Management 2013,
126, 44–54, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.04.003.

References
1. FAO. FAOSTAT database. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (accessed on 2 April 2020).
2. UN. Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/
sustainable/sustainable-development-goals.html (accessed on 22 February 2019).
3. UN. Global Sustainable Development Report; 2015. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.
un.org/content/documents/1758GSDR%202015%20Advance%20Unedited%20Version.pdf (accessed on
14 April 2020).
4. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture. Livestock in the Balance; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations: Rome, Italy, 2009. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i0680e.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2020).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5502 13 of 14

5. Patel, M.; Sonesson, U.; Hessle, A. Upgrading plant amino acids through cattle to improve the nutritional
value for humans: Effects of different production systems. Animal 2017, 11, 519–528. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Ellis, J.L.; Dijkstra, J.; Kebreab, E.; Bannink, A.; Odongo, N.E.; McBride, B.W.; France, J. Aspects of rumen
microbiology central to mechanistic modelling of methane production in cattle. J. Agric. Sci. 2008, 146,
213–233. [CrossRef]
7. Murray, R.M.; Bryant, A.M.; Leng, R.A. Rates of production of methane in the rumen and large intestine of
sheep. Br. J. Nutr. 1976, 36, 1–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. FAO and GDP. Climate Change and the Global Dairy Cattle Sector—The Role of the Dairy Sector in a Low-Carbon
Future; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Global Dairy Platform Inc.: Rome, Rome,
Italy, 2018. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/CA2929EN/ca2929en.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2020).
9. Hörtenhuber, S.; Lindenthal, T.; Amon, B.; Markut, T.; Kirner, L.; Zollitsch, W. Greenhouse gas emissions
from selected Austrian dairy production systems—Model calculations considering the effects of land use
change. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2010, 25, 316–329. [CrossRef]
10. Nguyen, T.T.H.; Doreau, M.; Corson, M.S.; Eugène, M.; Delaby, L.; Chesneau, G.; Gallard, Y.;
van der Werf, H.M.G. Effect of dairy production system, breed and co-product handling methods on
environmental impacts at farm level. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 120, 127–137. [CrossRef]
11. Gourley, C.J.P.; Aarons, S.R.; Powell, J.M. Nitrogen use efficiency and manure management practices in
contrasting dairy production systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 147, 73–81. [CrossRef]
12. European Commission. Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare; Directorate-General for Communication:
Brussels, Belgium, 2015. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/88u/dataset/S2096_84_4_442_ENG (accessed
on 14 April 2020).
13. Ingenbleek, P.T.M.; Immink, V.M. Consumer decision-making for animal-friendly products: Synthesis and
implications. Anim. Welf. 2011, 20, 11–19. Available online: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/
aw/2011/00000020/00000001/art00003 (accessed on 2 April 2020).
14. van Calker, K.J.; Berentsen, P.B.M.; Giesen, G.W.J.; Huirne, R.B.M. Identifying and ranking attributes that
determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agric. Hum. Values 2005, 22, 53–63. [CrossRef]
15. Brundtland, G.H. Our Common Future—Call for Action. Environ. Conserv. 1987, 14, 291–294. [CrossRef]
16. Tilman, D.; Cassman, K.G.; Matson, P.A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive
production practices. Nature 2002, 418, 671–677. [CrossRef]
17. Torp-Donner, H.; Juga, J. Sustainability—A challenge to animal production and breeding. Agric. Food Sci.
1997, 6, 229–239. [CrossRef]
18. Filson, G.C.; Pfeiffer, W.C.; Paine, C.; Taylor, J.R. The Relationship Between Grand River Dairy Farmers’
Quality of Life and Economic, Social and Environmental Aspects of Their Farming Systems. J. Sustain. Agric.
2003, 22, 61–77. [CrossRef]
19. Filson, G.C.; McCoy, M. Farmers’ Quality of Life: Sorting Out the Differences by Class. Rural Sociol. 1993, 13,
15–37. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ467596 (accessed on 5 April 2020).
20. Valentin, A.; Spangenberg, J.H. A guide to community sustainability indicators. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
2000, 20, 381–392. [CrossRef]
21. Gunnarsson, S.; Arvidsson Segerkvist, K.; Wallgren, T.; Hansson, H.; Sonesson, U. A Systematic Mapping
of Research on Sustainability Dimensions at Farm-level in Pig Production. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4352.
[CrossRef]
22. Gunnarsson, S.; Arvidsson Segerkvist, K.; Göransson, L.; Hansson, H.; Sonesson, U. Systematic Mapping of
Research on Farm-Level Sustainability in Egg and Chicken Meat Production. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3033.
[CrossRef]
23. Notarnicola, B.; Sala, S.; Anton, A.; McLaren, S.J.; Saouter, E.; Sonesson, U. The role of life cycle assessment in
supporting sustainable agri-food systems: A review of the challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 399–409.
[CrossRef]
24. Collins, A.; Fairchild, R. Sustainable Food Consumption at a Sub-national Level: An Ecological Footprint,
Nutritional and Economic Analysis. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2007, 9, 5–30. [CrossRef]
25. Ayres, R.U.; van den Bergh, J.C.J.M.; Gowdy, J.M. Strong versus weak sustainability: Economics, natural
sciences and ‘consilience’. Environ. Ethics 2001, 23, 155–168. [CrossRef]
26. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. Externality or sustainability economics? Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 2047–2052. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5502 14 of 14

27. Montiel, I.; Delgado-Ceballos, J. Defining and Measuring Corporate Sustainability: Are We There Yet?
Organ. Environ. 2014, 27, 113–139. [CrossRef]
28. Alliances, G.S. Global Reporting Initiative. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/
(accessed on 5 April 2020).
29. Vallance, S.; Perkins, H.C.; Dixon, J.E. What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum
2011, 42, 342–348. [CrossRef]
30. Snilstveit, B.; Vojtkova, M.; Bhavsar, A.; Stevenson, J.; Gaarder, M. Evidence & Gap Maps: A tool for
promoting evidence informed policy and strategic research agendas. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2016, 79, 120–129.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Petersen, K.; Vakkalanka, S.; Kuzniarz, L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software
engineering: An update. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2015, 64, 1–18. [CrossRef]
32. James, K.L.; Randall, N.P.; Haddaway, N.R. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental
sciences. Environ. Evid. 2016, 5, 7. [CrossRef]
33. Mie, A.; Andersen, H.R.; Gunnarsson, S.; Kahl, J.; Kesse-Guyot, E.; Rembialkowska, E.; Quaglio, G.;
Grandjean, P. Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: A comprehensive review.
Environ. Health 2017, 16, 22. [CrossRef]
34. Amador, P.; Duarte, I.M.; da Costa, R.P.R.; Fernandes, R.; Prudencio, C. Characterization of Antibiotic
Resistance in Enterobacteriaceae From Agricultural Manure and Soil in Portugal. Soil Sci 2017, 182, 292–301.
[CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).