The sustainability of agriculture is questioned due to major negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts. To improve the state of agriculture, various management changes have been proposed. Different tools, with varying characteristics, sustainability framing and indicators, have been used to evaluate the impact of these changes on sustainability. Here, we review 119 tools for farm sustainability assessment and compare their use, sustainability dimensions, themes and types of indicators used for biodiversity conservation, farm viability and gender equity. Our main findings are that (1) tools could be classified into five groups that differ in stakeholder participation and model used for calculating sustainability, (2) seven different sustainability framings are used and (3) only two out of 29 indicators screened address impacts of farming system while the others address drivers, pressures or states of the system. The tools were grouped in “Long-term monitoring of farm activities” (11%), “Ex-ante assessment of sustainability with bioeconomic models” (9%), “Survey- and indicator-based assessment of tools” (41%), “Consultation-based assessment” (25%) and “Active engagement of stakeholder-based assessment” (14%). The “classical view of sustainability”, with the economic, social and environmental pillars, was used in 61% of the papers. Based on these findings, we suggest (1) development of temporal dynamic assessment of farm sustainability with active involvement of stakeholders in the framing of sustainability and design of indicators to achieve reliable and relevant assessment outcomes. We recommend (2) adoption of more complex sustainability framings dealing with emerging system properties, namely resilience, viability and stability. In these, (3) governance/institutional dimensions should be emphasised, and social themes targeting farmers’ characteristics should be included. Finally, (4) use of impact indicators in farm sustainability assessments is critical, and they should be designed to contribute to scientifically rigorous and relevant assessments of farming system sustainability.

由于主要的负面环境和社会经济影响，农业的可持续性受到质疑。为了改善农业状况，已经提出了各种管理上的改变。具有不同特征，可持续性框架和指标的不同工具已用于评估这些变化对可持续性的影响。在这里，我们回顾了119种用于农场可持续性评估的工具，并比较了它们的用途，可持续性维度，用于生物多样性保护，农场生存力和性别平等的指标的主题和类型。我们的主要发现是：（1）工具可分为五类，在利益相关者的参与和用于计算可持续性的模型方面有所不同，（2）使用了七个不同的可持续性框架，（3）在筛选出的29个指标中，只有两个指标解决了农业系统的影响，而其他指标则解决了系统的驱动因素，压力或状态。这些工具分为“农场活动的长期监测”（11％），“使用生物经济模型进行可持续性事前评估”（9％），“基于调查和指标的工具评估”（41％）。 ，“基于咨询的评估”（占25％）和“基于利益相关者的评估的积极参与”（占14％）。61％的论文使用了具有经济，社会和环境支柱的“可持续发展的经典观点”。根据这些发现，我们建议（1）在利益相关者积极参与可持续性框架设计和指标设计以实现可靠和相关的评估结果的过程中，发展对农场可持续性的时间动态评估。我们建议（2）采用更复杂的可持续性框架来应对新兴的系统属性，即弹性，生存能力和稳定性。其中，（3）应强调治理/制度层面，并应包括针对农民特征的社会主题。最后，（4）在农场可持续性评估中使用影响指标至关重要，应该设计这些指标以促进对农业系统可持续性进行科学严格和相关的评估。我们建议（2）采用更复杂的可持续性框架来应对新兴的系统属性，即弹性，生存能力和稳定性。其中，（3）应强调治理/制度层面，并应包括针对农民特征的社会主题。最后，（4）在农场可持续性评估中使用影响指标至关重要，应该设计这些指标以促进对农业系统可持续性进行科学严格和相关的评估。我们建议（2）采用更复杂的可持续性框架来应对新兴的系统属性，即弹性，生存能力和稳定性。其中，（3）应强调治理/制度层面，并应包括针对农民特征的社会主题。最后，（4）在农场可持续性评估中使用影响指标至关重要，应该设计这些指标以促进对农业系统可持续性进行科学严格和相关的评估。