農場レベルツールから州レベル評価へ：乳業サステナビリティ指標のスコーピングレビュー

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:指標のスケーリング・集約に伴う妥当性リスクを体系的に整理した枠組みとして参照できる。

🏢実務担当者:Scope 3農産物調達の指標選定や集約時の歪みを避ける設計に活用できる。

🏛政策担当者:地域・国家レベルの排出目標と農場指標の接続設計、サンプリングや配分規則の透明化に示唆。

Dairy production is expected to deliver nutritious food, rural livelihoods and export earnings while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, nutrient losses and pressures on land, water, biodiversity and animal welfare. Indicators are the principal means by which these expectations are translated into measurable performance, yet they are developed for different purposes and at different scales, from on-farm diagnostic tools to sector inventories and jurisdiction-wide composite indices. This critical narrative review, conducted with a scoping purpose, maps how dairy sustainability indicators are constructed, applied and aggregated across the farm, supply-chain, regional and state or national levels, and evaluates whether information generated at one level can legitimately inform decisions at another. Peer-reviewed studies, methodological reviews and authoritative institutional sources were identified through multidisciplinary, agricultural, economic and regional scholarly indexes, supplemented by citation tracking, and were appraised qualitatively for relevance, transparency, representativeness and robustness. The synthesis shows that farm-level tools differ widely in normative framing, indicator logic, scoring and aggregation, so that tools applied to the same farms can produce divergent judgements. Environmental indicators are the most mature, but carbon footprints remain sensitive to allocation rules, emission-factor tiers and functional units, and intensity metrics often move in the opposite direction to absolute emissions that matter for state targets. Economic indicators are comparatively well supported by accountancy data, whereas social and animal-welfare indicators remain under-specified and are frequently lost or distorted during aggregation. State-level assessments follow four broad routes: weighting representative farm samples, top-down inventories, modelled regional typologies and composite indices built from administrative statistics. Each route carries characteristic risks, including unrepresentative sampling, spatial misallocation, leakage through imported feed and weighting choices that can reorder jurisdictions. Smallholder and mixed crop–livestock systems, which dominate milk supply in several countries, are poorly served by tools designed for specialised temperate farms. A nested indicator architecture, built on a verifiable core of farm data, explicit scaling rules and paired intensity and absolute metrics, is proposed as a defensible direction. Its validity remains to be demonstrated through longitudinal and cross-jurisdictional testing.

• semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2026/v32i114705first seen 2026-11-12 05:36:53 · last seen 2026-11-14 05:43:28