2023
Journal Articles
1.
Zou, Liuxin; Wu, Jiang; Gong, Yeming; Chen, Mingyang; Xia, Mengchen
Operations research on the sharing economy: A bibliometric analysis and literature review Journal Article
In: Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, pp. 101265, 2023, ISSN: 1567-4223.
@article{Zou2023,
title = {Operations research on the sharing economy: A bibliometric analysis and literature review},
author = {Liuxin Zou and Jiang Wu and Yeming Gong and Mingyang Chen and Mengchen Xia},
url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567422323000303},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2023.101265},
issn = {1567-4223},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-04-26},
journal = {Electronic Commerce Research and Applications},
pages = {101265},
abstract = {Previous studies on the sharing economy have not utilized bibliometrics to classify the main stakeholders from the perspective of operations research (OR). In this study, we utilize the bibliometric method to review the supply side, demand side, the platform, and their optimization models. Based on the bibliometric network, we propose a complete multi-level framework to study the optimization decisions of stakeholders and the key factors that may influence optimal decisions in the sharing economy. The pricing, behavioral characteristics, operating strategies, and incentive methods of the three stakeholders will affect the optimal decisions and models. Multi-party interaction significantly affects the decision-making behavior of stakeholders. The sharing economy introduces a new business model to traditional industrial applications, such as transportation and trade, and has both positive and negative effects on the economy, environment, and society. We identify future research in the ecosystem of the sharing economy, hybrid methods, and breakthrough technologies, such as blockchain, AI, and data-driven optimization.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Previous studies on the sharing economy have not utilized bibliometrics to classify the main stakeholders from the perspective of operations research (OR). In this study, we utilize the bibliometric method to review the supply side, demand side, the platform, and their optimization models. Based on the bibliometric network, we propose a complete multi-level framework to study the optimization decisions of stakeholders and the key factors that may influence optimal decisions in the sharing economy. The pricing, behavioral characteristics, operating strategies, and incentive methods of the three stakeholders will affect the optimal decisions and models. Multi-party interaction significantly affects the decision-making behavior of stakeholders. The sharing economy introduces a new business model to traditional industrial applications, such as transportation and trade, and has both positive and negative effects on the economy, environment, and society. We identify future research in the ecosystem of the sharing economy, hybrid methods, and breakthrough technologies, such as blockchain, AI, and data-driven optimization.
2.
Loconto, Allison Marie; Garrido-Garza, Francisco; Dufeu, Ivan
Innovations for Sustainable Food Systems: Focusing on Agroecology and Participatory Guarantee Systems Journal Article
In: Journal of Rural Problems, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 37-44, 2023, ISSN: 2185-9973, (農林業問題研究).
@article{Loconto2023,
title = {Innovations for Sustainable Food Systems: Focusing on Agroecology and Participatory Guarantee Systems},
author = {Allison Marie Loconto and Francisco Garrido-Garza and Ivan Dufeu},
url = {https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/arfe/59/1/59_37/_article/-char/ja/
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/arfe/59/1/59_37/_pdf/-char/ja},
doi = {10.7310/arfe.59.37},
issn = {2185-9973},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-03-01},
urldate = {2023-03-01},
journal = {Journal of Rural Problems},
volume = {59},
number = {1},
pages = {37-44},
abstract = {While organic agriculture has created a set of institutions that allow producers to know which practices provide “organic” quality and allow consumers to recognize it via an on-package label, the landscape of agroecological products is quite fluid and diverse. Often, products are traded directly between producers and consumers and quality is conveyed verbally. However, there has been a general increase in the use of private labels to claim that products are agroecological or “more than organic”. This article explores these recent innovations by asking: How does agroecology become a product quality claim in innovative forms of quality control? To answer this question, data on labels claiming to be “agroecological” and related assurance systems were gathered through internet research, market monitoring and semi-structured interviews in the European Union. In this article we explore the range of claims, and control networks, used to characterize the so-called “agroecological” labels and confront them with FAO’s 10 principles of agroecology. This 27-country comparison offers interesting insights into the overlaps and boundaries between agroecology and organic agriculture in terms of the markets that are created.},
note = {農林業問題研究},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
While organic agriculture has created a set of institutions that allow producers to know which practices provide “organic” quality and allow consumers to recognize it via an on-package label, the landscape of agroecological products is quite fluid and diverse. Often, products are traded directly between producers and consumers and quality is conveyed verbally. However, there has been a general increase in the use of private labels to claim that products are agroecological or “more than organic”. This article explores these recent innovations by asking: How does agroecology become a product quality claim in innovative forms of quality control? To answer this question, data on labels claiming to be “agroecological” and related assurance systems were gathered through internet research, market monitoring and semi-structured interviews in the European Union. In this article we explore the range of claims, and control networks, used to characterize the so-called “agroecological” labels and confront them with FAO’s 10 principles of agroecology. This 27-country comparison offers interesting insights into the overlaps and boundaries between agroecology and organic agriculture in terms of the markets that are created.
Technical Reports
3.
Mason, Eloïse; Löbmann, Michael; Matt, Mireille; Sharif, Ibrat; Maring, Linda; Ittner, Sophie; Bispo, Antonio
Knowedge needs and gaps on soil and land management Technical Report
2023.
@techreport{Mason2023b,
title = {Knowedge needs and gaps on soil and land management},
author = {Eloïse Mason and Michael Löbmann and Mireille Matt and Ibrat Sharif and Linda Maring and Sophie Ittner and Antonio Bispo},
url = {https://zenodo.org/records/7695462
https://zenodo.org/records/7695462/files/SMS%20Deliverable%202_4%20-%20Knowledge%20needs%20and%20gaps%20on%20soil%20and%20land%20management.pdf?download=1
https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04453703v1/file/SMS%20Deliverable%202_4%20-%20Knowledge%20needs%20and%20gaps%20on%20soil%20and%20land%20management.pdf
},
doi = {/10.5281/zenodo.7695461},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-02-17},
urldate = {2023-02-17},
abstract = {Soil health is vital for many ecosystem services. The Horizon Europe (HE) Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe” aims to accelerate the transition to sustainable soil and land management and healthy soils through an am-bitious transdisciplinary research and innovation (R&I) programme, largely based on actor engagement, Liv-ing Labs and Lighthouses. The H2020 Soil Mission Support (SMS) project supported the implementation of the HE Mission, and aimed to improve the coordination of R&I on sustainable soil and land management. Through a co-creation process together with actors, SMS collated available knowledge, actors R&I needs and identified R&I gaps that need to be addressed for successful transition towards sustainable soil and land management.
The first step was to identify existing R&I knowledge through a keyword-based analysis of scientific literature published and peer reviewed, related to sustainable soil and land management. The literature analysis ad-dressed the full range of societal challenges, soil health objectives, land use types and knowledge domains necessary to capture the socio-ecological complexity of soil health. Covering some 15,700 scientific articles, this literature analysis represents the current peer reviewed knowledge stock on sustainable soil and land management. A textual analysis using the digital platform CorTexT was undertaken to explore the identified literature and submitted to project consortium internal experts, who analysed and processed the collected information of their respective area of expertise (Annex III). The literature analysis revealed that the societal challenges “reduce soil degradation” and “improve disaster control” have been studied extensively. Con-versely, the societal challenges “mitigate land take” and “increase biodiversity” and the knowledge domains “science-based policy support” and “awareness, training & education” are less discussed. Factsheets present-ing the results of the literature analysis per societal challenge were developed and can be found in Annex VIII. Note that as the key-word based literature search was limited to Scopus-indexed scientific journals, other publishing formats such as conference papers, books, book chapters, non-digitalized articles, grey literature, reports, patents, etc., may be underrepresented or not included in the used data base. The exclusive use of Scopus-indexed scientific articles provided quality insurance of the material through the publication peer-review system. Nonetheless, important documents and knowledge have been incorporated by the consor-tium experts when analysing the collected literature.
The second step was to consult actors through online workshops and surveys in order to gain a practice-oriented ‘real-life’ picture of current knowledge and R&I needs for swift implementation of sustainable soil and land management. This step was seen as complementary of the published and peer-reviewed literature.
Finally, after exploring our stocktaking of R&I from existing knowledge evidenced by literature review and the actor’s knowledge needs identified from actor consultations, we identified R&I gaps. The main knowledge gaps across all Mission Objectives were of socio-economic nature: drivers and causes of land degradation, knowledge management, governance and policies for inciting improved management, and interaction with other sectors are not sufficiently understood. Second, the HE Missions’ focus on improving soil literacy was supported by the literature analysis and by the actor consultation, which both revealed knowledge gaps re-lated to education and capacity building in all land use types and domains affecting soil health: production, consumption, trade, policy and governance. Thirdly, there is a gap in the long-term implementation of a new mode of knowledge co-design, where researchers and practitioners together develop solutions for sustaina-ble soil and land management in a real-world context. The HE Missions’ focus on Living Labs and Lighthouses has the potential to close this gap. Finally, there is a need to define several concepts (e.g. soil health, soil degradation, footprint). Such definitions should be shared and will be a basis to identify relevant indicators and respective thresholds, and to develop guidelines to support monitoring programmes in order to translate knowledge into evidence for decision making.
The outcome of the deliverable is a list of validated R&I gaps across all Mission Objectives which will feed into the SMS roadmap and the HE Mission.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Soil health is vital for many ecosystem services. The Horizon Europe (HE) Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe” aims to accelerate the transition to sustainable soil and land management and healthy soils through an am-bitious transdisciplinary research and innovation (R&I) programme, largely based on actor engagement, Liv-ing Labs and Lighthouses. The H2020 Soil Mission Support (SMS) project supported the implementation of the HE Mission, and aimed to improve the coordination of R&I on sustainable soil and land management. Through a co-creation process together with actors, SMS collated available knowledge, actors R&I needs and identified R&I gaps that need to be addressed for successful transition towards sustainable soil and land management.
The first step was to identify existing R&I knowledge through a keyword-based analysis of scientific literature published and peer reviewed, related to sustainable soil and land management. The literature analysis ad-dressed the full range of societal challenges, soil health objectives, land use types and knowledge domains necessary to capture the socio-ecological complexity of soil health. Covering some 15,700 scientific articles, this literature analysis represents the current peer reviewed knowledge stock on sustainable soil and land management. A textual analysis using the digital platform CorTexT was undertaken to explore the identified literature and submitted to project consortium internal experts, who analysed and processed the collected information of their respective area of expertise (Annex III). The literature analysis revealed that the societal challenges “reduce soil degradation” and “improve disaster control” have been studied extensively. Con-versely, the societal challenges “mitigate land take” and “increase biodiversity” and the knowledge domains “science-based policy support” and “awareness, training & education” are less discussed. Factsheets present-ing the results of the literature analysis per societal challenge were developed and can be found in Annex VIII. Note that as the key-word based literature search was limited to Scopus-indexed scientific journals, other publishing formats such as conference papers, books, book chapters, non-digitalized articles, grey literature, reports, patents, etc., may be underrepresented or not included in the used data base. The exclusive use of Scopus-indexed scientific articles provided quality insurance of the material through the publication peer-review system. Nonetheless, important documents and knowledge have been incorporated by the consor-tium experts when analysing the collected literature.
The second step was to consult actors through online workshops and surveys in order to gain a practice-oriented ‘real-life’ picture of current knowledge and R&I needs for swift implementation of sustainable soil and land management. This step was seen as complementary of the published and peer-reviewed literature.
Finally, after exploring our stocktaking of R&I from existing knowledge evidenced by literature review and the actor’s knowledge needs identified from actor consultations, we identified R&I gaps. The main knowledge gaps across all Mission Objectives were of socio-economic nature: drivers and causes of land degradation, knowledge management, governance and policies for inciting improved management, and interaction with other sectors are not sufficiently understood. Second, the HE Missions’ focus on improving soil literacy was supported by the literature analysis and by the actor consultation, which both revealed knowledge gaps re-lated to education and capacity building in all land use types and domains affecting soil health: production, consumption, trade, policy and governance. Thirdly, there is a gap in the long-term implementation of a new mode of knowledge co-design, where researchers and practitioners together develop solutions for sustaina-ble soil and land management in a real-world context. The HE Missions’ focus on Living Labs and Lighthouses has the potential to close this gap. Finally, there is a need to define several concepts (e.g. soil health, soil degradation, footprint). Such definitions should be shared and will be a basis to identify relevant indicators and respective thresholds, and to develop guidelines to support monitoring programmes in order to translate knowledge into evidence for decision making.
The outcome of the deliverable is a list of validated R&I gaps across all Mission Objectives which will feed into the SMS roadmap and the HE Mission.
The first step was to identify existing R&I knowledge through a keyword-based analysis of scientific literature published and peer reviewed, related to sustainable soil and land management. The literature analysis ad-dressed the full range of societal challenges, soil health objectives, land use types and knowledge domains necessary to capture the socio-ecological complexity of soil health. Covering some 15,700 scientific articles, this literature analysis represents the current peer reviewed knowledge stock on sustainable soil and land management. A textual analysis using the digital platform CorTexT was undertaken to explore the identified literature and submitted to project consortium internal experts, who analysed and processed the collected information of their respective area of expertise (Annex III). The literature analysis revealed that the societal challenges “reduce soil degradation” and “improve disaster control” have been studied extensively. Con-versely, the societal challenges “mitigate land take” and “increase biodiversity” and the knowledge domains “science-based policy support” and “awareness, training & education” are less discussed. Factsheets present-ing the results of the literature analysis per societal challenge were developed and can be found in Annex VIII. Note that as the key-word based literature search was limited to Scopus-indexed scientific journals, other publishing formats such as conference papers, books, book chapters, non-digitalized articles, grey literature, reports, patents, etc., may be underrepresented or not included in the used data base. The exclusive use of Scopus-indexed scientific articles provided quality insurance of the material through the publication peer-review system. Nonetheless, important documents and knowledge have been incorporated by the consor-tium experts when analysing the collected literature.
The second step was to consult actors through online workshops and surveys in order to gain a practice-oriented ‘real-life’ picture of current knowledge and R&I needs for swift implementation of sustainable soil and land management. This step was seen as complementary of the published and peer-reviewed literature.
Finally, after exploring our stocktaking of R&I from existing knowledge evidenced by literature review and the actor’s knowledge needs identified from actor consultations, we identified R&I gaps. The main knowledge gaps across all Mission Objectives were of socio-economic nature: drivers and causes of land degradation, knowledge management, governance and policies for inciting improved management, and interaction with other sectors are not sufficiently understood. Second, the HE Missions’ focus on improving soil literacy was supported by the literature analysis and by the actor consultation, which both revealed knowledge gaps re-lated to education and capacity building in all land use types and domains affecting soil health: production, consumption, trade, policy and governance. Thirdly, there is a gap in the long-term implementation of a new mode of knowledge co-design, where researchers and practitioners together develop solutions for sustaina-ble soil and land management in a real-world context. The HE Missions’ focus on Living Labs and Lighthouses has the potential to close this gap. Finally, there is a need to define several concepts (e.g. soil health, soil degradation, footprint). Such definitions should be shared and will be a basis to identify relevant indicators and respective thresholds, and to develop guidelines to support monitoring programmes in order to translate knowledge into evidence for decision making.
The outcome of the deliverable is a list of validated R&I gaps across all Mission Objectives which will feed into the SMS roadmap and the HE Mission.
Workshops
4.
Kocksch, Laura Anna; Sørensen, Estrid
Towards a Typology of Interdisciplinarity in Cybersecurity: Trade, Choice, and Agnostic-Antagonist Workshop
2023, (NSPW '23: Proceedings of the 2023 New Security Paradigms Workshop).
@workshop{Kocksch2023,
title = {Towards a Typology of Interdisciplinarity in Cybersecurity: Trade, Choice, and Agnostic-Antagonist},
author = {Laura Anna Kocksch and Estrid Sørensen},
url = {https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3633500.3633510},
doi = {10.1145/3633500.3633510},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-12-22},
urldate = {2023-12-22},
abstract = {Cybersecurity research increasingly involves non-engineering disciplines, such as psychology, social science and law [ 41 ]. In this paper, we argue that cybersecurity research is not only reshaped through new methods and concepts of these adjacent fields, but also through shared interdisciplinary practices. Existing literature on interdisciplinarity in cybersecurity is primarily concerned with defining ideal models that are based on ideals, rather than in empirical research of how interdisciplinarity is formed in practice. We offer an ethnographic analysis of interdisciplinary formats based on our four-year participation in the ongoing interdisciplinary cybersecurity PhD programme SecHuman at the Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany. The PhD programme brings together engineers, social scientists as well as humanities scholars. Drawing on methods and literature of ethnographic science and technology studies (STS), we attend to eight different interdisciplinary formats and analyse how they shape cybersecurity research: its logics of accountability, of innovation, and of ontology [3]. This leads to a typology of five modes of interdisciplinarity that can be found in the PhD programme: 1. choice, 2. subordinate-service, 3. integrative-synthetic, 4. trading, and 5. agonistic-antagonistic. Based on our empirical findings, we discuss how each mode shapes cybersecurity, and conclude with suggestions of how to craft interdisciplinary formats in the field.},
note = {NSPW '23: Proceedings of the 2023 New Security Paradigms Workshop},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {workshop}
}
Cybersecurity research increasingly involves non-engineering disciplines, such as psychology, social science and law [ 41 ]. In this paper, we argue that cybersecurity research is not only reshaped through new methods and concepts of these adjacent fields, but also through shared interdisciplinary practices. Existing literature on interdisciplinarity in cybersecurity is primarily concerned with defining ideal models that are based on ideals, rather than in empirical research of how interdisciplinarity is formed in practice. We offer an ethnographic analysis of interdisciplinary formats based on our four-year participation in the ongoing interdisciplinary cybersecurity PhD programme SecHuman at the Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany. The PhD programme brings together engineers, social scientists as well as humanities scholars. Drawing on methods and literature of ethnographic science and technology studies (STS), we attend to eight different interdisciplinary formats and analyse how they shape cybersecurity research: its logics of accountability, of innovation, and of ontology [3]. This leads to a typology of five modes of interdisciplinarity that can be found in the PhD programme: 1. choice, 2. subordinate-service, 3. integrative-synthetic, 4. trading, and 5. agonistic-antagonistic. Based on our empirical findings, we discuss how each mode shapes cybersecurity, and conclude with suggestions of how to craft interdisciplinary formats in the field.
2021
Journal Articles
5.
de Raymond, Antoine Bernard; Alpha, Arlène; Ben-Ari, Tamara; Daviron, Benoît; Nesme, Thomas; Tétart, Gilles
Systemic risk and food security. Emerging trends and future avenues for research Journal Article
In: Global Food Security, 2021.
@article{deRaymond2021,
title = {Systemic risk and food security. Emerging trends and future avenues for research},
author = {Antoine Bernard de Raymond and Arlène Alpha and Tamara Ben-Ari and Benoît Daviron and Thomas Nesme and Gilles Tétart},
url = {http://agri.ckcest.cn/file1/M00/02/DB/Csgk0WC5rL2ALdKRABEk1jUjpcE370.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100547},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-14},
urldate = {2021-05-14},
journal = {Global Food Security},
abstract = {The unanticipated international food price spike of 2008 has raised concerns about global food security. Might food systems lastingly fail to supply, trade, and distribute food? Might widespread unsustainable agricultural practices irreversibly alter ecosystems? Or might large scale food shortages trigger political unrest? To answer these questions, we reflect upon the concept of systemic risk and conduct a review of the literature on systemic risks and food security. First, we present the concept of systemic risk and current trends in systemic risk research.
We then analyze contributions on systemic risk and food security. We first show that the literature has so far focused on a) agricultural production and correlated yield-losses, and on ways of pooling risk at regional or global-level, and b) the role of international trade in increasing or decreasing systemic risk. We then identify avenues for further research, highlighting the impact of intensive farming on ecosystems. Finally, we discuss the concept of systemic risk: we show that scholars need to be careful when assuming that there exists just one global food system; we show that systemic risk can be understood in various ways, beyond the domino effect paradigm.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The unanticipated international food price spike of 2008 has raised concerns about global food security. Might food systems lastingly fail to supply, trade, and distribute food? Might widespread unsustainable agricultural practices irreversibly alter ecosystems? Or might large scale food shortages trigger political unrest? To answer these questions, we reflect upon the concept of systemic risk and conduct a review of the literature on systemic risks and food security. First, we present the concept of systemic risk and current trends in systemic risk research.
We then analyze contributions on systemic risk and food security. We first show that the literature has so far focused on a) agricultural production and correlated yield-losses, and on ways of pooling risk at regional or global-level, and b) the role of international trade in increasing or decreasing systemic risk. We then identify avenues for further research, highlighting the impact of intensive farming on ecosystems. Finally, we discuss the concept of systemic risk: we show that scholars need to be careful when assuming that there exists just one global food system; we show that systemic risk can be understood in various ways, beyond the domino effect paradigm.
We then analyze contributions on systemic risk and food security. We first show that the literature has so far focused on a) agricultural production and correlated yield-losses, and on ways of pooling risk at regional or global-level, and b) the role of international trade in increasing or decreasing systemic risk. We then identify avenues for further research, highlighting the impact of intensive farming on ecosystems. Finally, we discuss the concept of systemic risk: we show that scholars need to be careful when assuming that there exists just one global food system; we show that systemic risk can be understood in various ways, beyond the domino effect paradigm.
2020
Journal Articles
6.
Lu, Wei; Wang, Jiamin; Hu, Jiming
Analyzing the topic distribution and evolution of foreign relations from parliamentary debates: A framework and case study Journal Article
In: Information Processing & Management, vol. 55, no. 3, 2020.
@article{Wei2020,
title = {Analyzing the topic distribution and evolution of foreign relations from parliamentary debates: A framework and case study},
author = {Wei Lu and Jiamin Wang and Jiming Hu},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102191},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-05-01},
urldate = {2020-05-01},
journal = {Information Processing & Management},
volume = {55},
number = {3},
abstract = {Parliamentary texts are records of discussions of domestic and international affairs, which reflect national attitudes and development trends in foreign relations. In this paper, a research framework is proposed to analyze foreign relations on the basis of parliamentary texts. First, topic words are extracted from parliamentary texts, and then a co-word network is constructed to represent the correlation structure of topic words. The basic statistics, calculation of network indicators, community detection, and visualization of network maps and evolution venation, as well as the depiction of a strategic diagram, elucidate deeper characteristics and connotations of foreign relations. This case study on UK-China relations during the period of 2011-2017 using British parliamentary texts reveals the following findings. Over this period, UK-China relations changed in terms of the topics involved, topics which are greatly unbalanced in distribution, but are quite concentrated. Five different directions exist, centering on Trade, Human rights, Nuclear, Steel, and Visa. The evolution of topics includes merging and differentiation. A minority of topics exhibit marked continuity, which constitute the main focal points discussed each year, such as Economy and Trade. Regarding development trends, themes related to trade and steel remain focal points in UK-China relations. Overall, the framework proposed in this paper is proven to be both effective and feasible, and its application through this case study can foster a deeper understanding of the status and development of UK-China relations.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Parliamentary texts are records of discussions of domestic and international affairs, which reflect national attitudes and development trends in foreign relations. In this paper, a research framework is proposed to analyze foreign relations on the basis of parliamentary texts. First, topic words are extracted from parliamentary texts, and then a co-word network is constructed to represent the correlation structure of topic words. The basic statistics, calculation of network indicators, community detection, and visualization of network maps and evolution venation, as well as the depiction of a strategic diagram, elucidate deeper characteristics and connotations of foreign relations. This case study on UK-China relations during the period of 2011-2017 using British parliamentary texts reveals the following findings. Over this period, UK-China relations changed in terms of the topics involved, topics which are greatly unbalanced in distribution, but are quite concentrated. Five different directions exist, centering on Trade, Human rights, Nuclear, Steel, and Visa. The evolution of topics includes merging and differentiation. A minority of topics exhibit marked continuity, which constitute the main focal points discussed each year, such as Economy and Trade. Regarding development trends, themes related to trade and steel remain focal points in UK-China relations. Overall, the framework proposed in this paper is proven to be both effective and feasible, and its application through this case study can foster a deeper understanding of the status and development of UK-China relations.
Technical Reports
7.
Pellerin, Sylvain; Bamière, Laure; Launay, Camille; Martin, Raphaël; Schiavo, Michele; Angers, Denis; Augusto, Laurent; Balesdent, Jérôme; Basile-Doelsch, Isabelle; Bellassen, Valentin; Cardinael, Rémi; Cécillon, Lauric; Ceschia, Eric; Chenu, Claire; Constantin, Julie; Darroussin, Joël; Delacote, Philippe; Delame, Nathalie; Gastal, François; Gilbert, Daniel; Graux, Anne-Isabelle; Guenet, Bertrand; Houot, Sabine; Klumpp, Katja; Letort, Elodie; Litrico, Isabelle; Martin, Manuel; Menasseri, Safya; Mézière, Delphine; Morvan, Thierry; Mosnier, Claire; Roger-Estrade, Jean; Saint-André, Laurent; Sierra, Jorge; Thérond, Olivier; Viaud, Valérie; Grateau, Régis; Perchec, Sophie Le; Réchauchère, Olivier
Stocker du carbone dans les sols français : Quel potentiel au regard de l’objectif 4 pour 1000 et à quel coût ? Technical Report
INRAE 2020.
@techreport{Pellerin2020,
title = {Stocker du carbone dans les sols français : Quel potentiel au regard de l’objectif 4 pour 1000 et à quel coût ?},
author = {Sylvain Pellerin and Laure Bamière and Camille Launay and Raphaël Martin and Michele Schiavo and Denis Angers and Laurent Augusto and Jérôme Balesdent and Isabelle Basile-Doelsch and Valentin Bellassen and Rémi Cardinael and Lauric Cécillon and Eric Ceschia and Claire Chenu and Julie Constantin and Joël Darroussin and Philippe Delacote and Nathalie Delame and François Gastal and Daniel Gilbert and Anne-Isabelle Graux and Bertrand Guenet and Sabine Houot and Katja Klumpp and Elodie Letort and Isabelle Litrico and Manuel Martin and Safya Menasseri and Delphine Mézière and Thierry Morvan and Claire Mosnier and Jean Roger-Estrade and Laurent Saint-André and Jorge Sierra and Olivier Thérond and Valérie Viaud and Régis Grateau and Sophie Le Perchec and Olivier Réchauchère},
url = {https://agritrop.cirad.fr/597691/1/Pellerin2020%20Stocker%20du%20carbone%20dans%20les%20sols%20fran%C3%A7ais.pdf},
doi = {10.35690/978-2-7592-3149-2},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-12-30},
urldate = {2020-12-30},
institution = {INRAE},
abstract = {L’étude «4 pour mille France» dont les résultats sont présentés dans ce rapport a été conduite par l’INRA, à la demande de l’Agence de l'environnement et de la maîtrise de l'énergie (ADEME) et du Ministère chargé de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation (MAA). Les objectifs étaient (i)d’identifier des pratiques agricoles et sylvicoles plus «stockantes » que les pratiques actuellement mises en œuvre, (ii)de chiffrer le potentiel de stockage additionnel associé, de le cartographier, de quantifier les autres effets induits liés à l’adoption de ces pratiques stockantes (pertes ou gains de rendement, émissions de N2O, lessivage de nitrate, utilisation de produits phytosanitaires...), (iii)de chiffrer leur coût de mise en œuvre, d’identifier les freins à l’adoption et de proposer une stratégie coût-efficace de stockage.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
L’étude «4 pour mille France» dont les résultats sont présentés dans ce rapport a été conduite par l’INRA, à la demande de l’Agence de l'environnement et de la maîtrise de l'énergie (ADEME) et du Ministère chargé de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation (MAA). Les objectifs étaient (i)d’identifier des pratiques agricoles et sylvicoles plus «stockantes » que les pratiques actuellement mises en œuvre, (ii)de chiffrer le potentiel de stockage additionnel associé, de le cartographier, de quantifier les autres effets induits liés à l’adoption de ces pratiques stockantes (pertes ou gains de rendement, émissions de N2O, lessivage de nitrate, utilisation de produits phytosanitaires...), (iii)de chiffrer leur coût de mise en œuvre, d’identifier les freins à l’adoption et de proposer une stratégie coût-efficace de stockage.
2019
Journal Articles
8.
de Assis Espécie, Mariana; Carvalho, Pedro Ninôde; Pinheiro, Maria Fernanda Bacile; Rosenthal, Vinicius Mesquita; da Silva, Leyla A. Ferreira; de Carvalhaes Pinheiro, Mariana Rodrigues; Espig, Silvana Andreoli; Mariani, Carolina Fiorillo; de Almeida, Elisângela Medeiros; dos Santos Sodré, Federica Natasha Ganança Abreu
Ecosystem services and renewable power generation: A preliminary literature review Journal Article
In: Renewable Energy, vol. 140, pp. 39-51, 2019, ISBN: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.076.
@article{deEspécie2019,
title = {Ecosystem services and renewable power generation: A preliminary literature review},
author = {Mariana de Assis Espécie and Pedro Ninôde Carvalho and Maria Fernanda Bacile Pinheiro and Vinicius Mesquita Rosenthal and Leyla A. Ferreira da Silva and Mariana Rodrigues de Carvalhaes Pinheiro and Silvana Andreoli Espig and Carolina Fiorillo Mariani and Elisângela Medeiros de Almeida and Federica Natasha Ganança Abreu dos Santos Sodré},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.076},
isbn = {10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.076},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-09-01},
urldate = {2019-09-01},
journal = {Renewable Energy},
volume = {140},
pages = {39-51},
abstract = {The term ecosystem services describes a relatively novel approach that directly associates the environment to the provision of human well-being, a concept to which renewable power generation is intrinsically connected. In light of this, the present work characterizes the evolution of the ecosystem services approach as it relates to power generation from renewable sources and identifies trends that have being applied in the field worldwide. The baseline data for the analyses were retrieved from queries of an online scientific database, from which articles that contained the term “ecosystem services” and terms related to renewable energy sources were selected. Chiefly influenced by the publication of reference documents on this issue, the literature review that supported this study demonstrates some trends regarding the ecosystem services approach to renewables, most of which are related to hydropower, including the following: (i) concerns about the degree of dependence that hydropower facilities have on forest conservation; (ii) the relevance of watershed land management for reducing soil erosion to enhance energy generation by hydropower plants; (iii) the emergence of environmentally friendly operational schemes to preserve and/or alleviate the impacts of hydropower plants on river ecosystem services; (iv) the adoption of payment for ecosystem services as an instrument to foment land use strategies that benefit hydropower generation by the engagement of different stakeholders; and (v) the use of economic valuation methods as means to address trade-off scenarios between energy generation and the maintenance of certain ecosystem services. In this process, universities, governments, companies, nongovernmental organizations and even the United Nations have been engaged in different manners of discussions as a reflection of the different positions they have assumed on the subject. The results gathered indicate that there are still opportunities to improve the ecosystem services approach by extending its use to the early stages of renewable energy facilities planning, such as the environmental impact assessments of these projects.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The term ecosystem services describes a relatively novel approach that directly associates the environment to the provision of human well-being, a concept to which renewable power generation is intrinsically connected. In light of this, the present work characterizes the evolution of the ecosystem services approach as it relates to power generation from renewable sources and identifies trends that have being applied in the field worldwide. The baseline data for the analyses were retrieved from queries of an online scientific database, from which articles that contained the term “ecosystem services” and terms related to renewable energy sources were selected. Chiefly influenced by the publication of reference documents on this issue, the literature review that supported this study demonstrates some trends regarding the ecosystem services approach to renewables, most of which are related to hydropower, including the following: (i) concerns about the degree of dependence that hydropower facilities have on forest conservation; (ii) the relevance of watershed land management for reducing soil erosion to enhance energy generation by hydropower plants; (iii) the emergence of environmentally friendly operational schemes to preserve and/or alleviate the impacts of hydropower plants on river ecosystem services; (iv) the adoption of payment for ecosystem services as an instrument to foment land use strategies that benefit hydropower generation by the engagement of different stakeholders; and (v) the use of economic valuation methods as means to address trade-off scenarios between energy generation and the maintenance of certain ecosystem services. In this process, universities, governments, companies, nongovernmental organizations and even the United Nations have been engaged in different manners of discussions as a reflection of the different positions they have assumed on the subject. The results gathered indicate that there are still opportunities to improve the ecosystem services approach by extending its use to the early stages of renewable energy facilities planning, such as the environmental impact assessments of these projects.
Technical Reports
9.
Loconto, Allison; Silva-Castañeda, Laura; Arnold, Nadine; Jimenez, Alejandra
Participatory Analysis of the Use and Impact of the Fairtrade Premium Technical Report
2019.
@techreport{Loconto2019,
title = {Participatory Analysis of the Use and Impact of the Fairtrade Premium},
author = {Allison Loconto and Laura Silva-Castañeda and Nadine Arnold and Alejandra Jimenez},
url = {https://files.fairtrade.net/publications/2019_LISIS_UseImpactFairtradePremium.pdf},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-01-01},
abstract = {This study was commissioned by Fairtrade Germany and Fairtrade International. It was carried out by a team of researchers working with the Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée (UPEM) in the Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations et Sociétés (LISIS). LISIS is an interdisciplinary research laboratory devoted to the study of science and innovations in society and is specifically renowned for its expertise on agri-food systems. It brings together 35 researchers and professors and 30 PhD and postdoctoral fellows from three core research disciplines: science and technology studies (STS), organization studies and digital studies.
The project team was led by Dr. Allison Marie Loconto and included Dr. Laura Silva-Castañeda, Dr. Nadine Arnold and Ms. Alejandra Jimenez. The field research for the five case studies was carried out directly by the team. The African cases were conducted by Drs. Loconto and Arnold while the South American cases were conducted by Dr. Silva and Ms. Jimenez. Dr. Marc Barbier provided technical support for the CorTexT and IRaMuTeQ analysis used in this study.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
This study was commissioned by Fairtrade Germany and Fairtrade International. It was carried out by a team of researchers working with the Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée (UPEM) in the Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations et Sociétés (LISIS). LISIS is an interdisciplinary research laboratory devoted to the study of science and innovations in society and is specifically renowned for its expertise on agri-food systems. It brings together 35 researchers and professors and 30 PhD and postdoctoral fellows from three core research disciplines: science and technology studies (STS), organization studies and digital studies.
The project team was led by Dr. Allison Marie Loconto and included Dr. Laura Silva-Castañeda, Dr. Nadine Arnold and Ms. Alejandra Jimenez. The field research for the five case studies was carried out directly by the team. The African cases were conducted by Drs. Loconto and Arnold while the South American cases were conducted by Dr. Silva and Ms. Jimenez. Dr. Marc Barbier provided technical support for the CorTexT and IRaMuTeQ analysis used in this study.
The project team was led by Dr. Allison Marie Loconto and included Dr. Laura Silva-Castañeda, Dr. Nadine Arnold and Ms. Alejandra Jimenez. The field research for the five case studies was carried out directly by the team. The African cases were conducted by Drs. Loconto and Arnold while the South American cases were conducted by Dr. Silva and Ms. Jimenez. Dr. Marc Barbier provided technical support for the CorTexT and IRaMuTeQ analysis used in this study.
2016
Journal Articles
10.
Leblond, Nelly; Trottier, Julie
Performing an Invisibility Spell: Global Models, Food Regimes and Smallholders Journal Article
In: International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture & Food, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 21-40, 2016.
@article{leblond2016performing,
title = {Performing an Invisibility Spell: Global Models, Food Regimes and Smallholders},
author = {Nelly Leblond and Julie Trottier},
url = {http://www.redgtd.org/CENTRODOC/BD_ARCHIVOS/02_Leblond&Trottier_Global_Models_Food_Regimes&Smallholders_2016.pdf},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-01-01},
urldate = {2016-01-01},
journal = {International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture & Food},
volume = {23},
number = {1},
pages = {21-40},
abstract = {The present construction of global representations of food and farming is problematic. For example, how can we 'know' the world needs to double food production even though we cannot foresee a food crisis? How can we estimate investment opportunities while failing to quantify their impacts on smallholders? Global models constrain the manner in which we perceive the food regime while producing such representations. We need to identify the causal relations embedded inside models' equations and why they are arrayed in this fashion. This article combines actor-network theory and structuration theory to analyse a sample of 70 global models. It locates the modules and equations of these black boxes in the sociotechnical and political context of their production. Finally, a bibliometric analysis sketches the overall epistemic community that drove models into success or extinction. Dominant global models recycle equations, modules and databases to effectuate narrow worlds. They make smallholder farming invisible in spite of its prevalence around the world. They do not address food needs and construct pixellated representations of underutilized land. They systematically favour large-scale agricultural trade and investments in production and productivity. This reflects the structure of signification modellers adhere to as well as the structure of domination they are embedded in. Securing clients ensures the success of global models independently from their validation. The article demonstrates the manner in which modelling is a social practice embedded in power relations. Considering simultaneously the structure of domination formalized inside models and surrounding modelling is crucial. Future research should investigate how various actors resort to global models to champion their goals. It should question the policy recommendations drawn from such models and their relevance as decision support tools.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The present construction of global representations of food and farming is problematic. For example, how can we 'know' the world needs to double food production even though we cannot foresee a food crisis? How can we estimate investment opportunities while failing to quantify their impacts on smallholders? Global models constrain the manner in which we perceive the food regime while producing such representations. We need to identify the causal relations embedded inside models' equations and why they are arrayed in this fashion. This article combines actor-network theory and structuration theory to analyse a sample of 70 global models. It locates the modules and equations of these black boxes in the sociotechnical and political context of their production. Finally, a bibliometric analysis sketches the overall epistemic community that drove models into success or extinction. Dominant global models recycle equations, modules and databases to effectuate narrow worlds. They make smallholder farming invisible in spite of its prevalence around the world. They do not address food needs and construct pixellated representations of underutilized land. They systematically favour large-scale agricultural trade and investments in production and productivity. This reflects the structure of signification modellers adhere to as well as the structure of domination they are embedded in. Securing clients ensures the success of global models independently from their validation. The article demonstrates the manner in which modelling is a social practice embedded in power relations. Considering simultaneously the structure of domination formalized inside models and surrounding modelling is crucial. Future research should investigate how various actors resort to global models to champion their goals. It should question the policy recommendations drawn from such models and their relevance as decision support tools.
2014
Technical Reports
11.
Tancoigne, Elise; Barbier, Marc; Cointet, Jean-Philippe; Richard, Guy
Les services écosystémiques dans la littérature scientifique : démarche d'exploration et résultats d'analyse : Rapport d'étude pour la phase d'exploration du métaprogramme EcoServ. Technical Report
2014, (hal-01157253 , version 1).
@techreport{Tancoigne2014b,
title = {Les services écosystémiques dans la littérature scientifique : démarche d'exploration et résultats d'analyse : Rapport d'étude pour la phase d'exploration du métaprogramme EcoServ. },
author = {Elise Tancoigne and Marc Barbier and Jean-Philippe Cointet and Guy Richard},
url = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01157253/},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-01-01},
urldate = {2014-01-01},
pages = {69},
abstract = {En 2005, le Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) a permis de reconnaître l’importance des écosystèmes pour le bien-être humain, ainsi que la diminution d’un certain nombre de services fournis à l’homme par ces mêmes écosystèmes au cours des dernières décennies. L’agriculture est considérée comme responsable de la diminution d’un certain nombre de services, ainsi que de la biodiversité, au profit du seul service d’approvisionnement en nourriture (Carpenter et al., 2009). Elle se trouve donc aujourd’hui plus que jamais confrontée à deux impératifs qui mettent en avant sa multifonctionnalité : garantir la fourniture de biens de consommation (nourriture, bois, eau potable...) et de bénéfices sociaux (e.g. emploi) tout en préservant la capacité des écosystèmes à fournir d’autres services (purification de l’eau, régulation du climat, etc.). EcoServ est un méta-programme de recherche en construction à l’Inra afin qu’y soit développée une recherche inter-disciplinaire sur les services fournis par les écosystèmes continentaux dépendants des activités agricoles et forestières. La présente analyse a été engagée dans le cadre de sa construction, afin de connaître la place des systèmes agricoles dans la littérature sur les services écosystémiques. Ce travail de scientométrie a été guidé par quatre questions principales : quelles sont les disciplines scientifiques impliquées dans cette recherche ? Quels sont les services écosystémiques abordés dans la littérature ? Quels sont les écosystèmes étudiés ? Quelle est la place de l’Inra dans ce paysage ? Le corpus est issu de la base de données bibliographique Web of Science. Il a été construit de manière large afin d’inclure les différents synonymes de la notion de « service écosystémique ». Différentes analyses lexicales ont ensuite été réalisées pour la période postérieure au MEA (2006-2012) à l’aide de la plateforme CorTexT manager de l’Ifris et de R (R Core Team, 2012) : extractions lexicales, catégorisations de termes, calculs de fréquences, cartes de cooccurences. Les termes les plus fréquemment utilisés dans les articles de la période 1975- 2012 sont ecosystem service (39 % des documents indexés), puis ecosystem function (29 %), ecological function (14 %) et environmental service (9 %). Le terme ecosystem function dominera jusqu’en 2007 où il sera supplanté par celui de ecosystem service qui connait une progression exponentielle suite à la publication du MEA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003, 2005). Ce concept est particulièrement mobilisé par l’écologie et la biologie de la conservation, d’où il tire son origine. Les trois références les plus citées de ce corpus se situent en écologie (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; Hooper et al., 2005). Les sciences agronomiques utilisent plutôt le terme de « services environnementaux », qui met l’accent sur les services rendus par l’homme à l’environnement. La place de l’Institut dans ce corpus étant très faible (1.5 %) malgré les résultats importants obtenus au cours de l’enquête réalisée début 2013 auprès des départements, il est très probable qu’un grand nombre de services soient étudiés à l’Inra sans que les chercheurs se réclament de cette notion. Le service le plus étudié est celui de production agricole. La majorité des services sont étudiés de manière isolée. Lorsqu’ils sont étudiés conjointement, les services concernés sont majoritairement des services qui agissent en synergie. Les services antagonistes sont très peu étudiés conjointement. Par conséquent, lorsque la notion de trade-off apparait dans la littérature, elle est surtout abordée de manière théorique et programmatique. En outre, elle peut concerner différents niveaux et différents objets : il peut s’agir de faire des compromis entre acteurs, ou bien entre désirs et réalité, ou bien encore entre Environnement et Humanité. Si les écosystèmes forestiers et agricoles sont parmi les écosystèmes les plus étudiés, ils le sont principalement dans leur dimension bio-physique, et très peu dans leur dimension sociale. L’idée d’étudier un socio-écosystème dans son ensemble n’est pas encore mise en oeuvre. Les problématiques de gestion des ressources naturelles sont abordées principalement par des méthodologies de l’économie classique : consentement à payer, évaluations contingentes, etc. Elles sont également très liées à un argumentaire en faveur du développement social. Tout ceci amène à penser qu’une grande partie de la littérature sur la gestion des services écosystémiques est avant tout d’ordre programmatique. Cette étude met également en évidence la limite du cadre conceptuel du MEA, limite qui a déjà été pointée à de nombreuses reprises dans la littérature. Ses catégories de service sont en effet de portée limitée pour repérer les services dans la littérature et elles ne permettent pas de détecter les dysservices (entendus ici comme des dysfonctionnements des écosystèmes), qui représentent pourtant une part importante de cette littérature. Cette étude possède également des limites importantes dans la mesure où sa source de données est loin d’être exhaustive et où son travail de catégorisation n’a pas permis de lever certaines ambiguïtés thématiques. Il est en effet souvent difficile de déterminer à partir de la liste de termes s’il s’agit d’un service rendu par les écosystèmes ou d’un service rendu par l’homme (ex. : forest protection). Pour conclure, ces résultats montrent que ce concept a peu été saisi par les sciences agronomiques, quand bien même de nombreuses études traitent des milieux agricoles ; qu’il est beaucoup abordé de manière programmatique et sans considérer le socio-écosystème dans son ensemble. Un grand nombre de travaux effectués à l’échelle du paysage incluent les agro-écosystèmes mais ne sont pas réalisés par les sciences agronomiques. Celles-ci ont intérêt à se placer sur ces « approches paysage » qui gagnent une place de plus en plus importante. Le développement d’une recherche intégrée sur la gestion des écosystèmes anthropisés prend donc tout son sens dans ce contexte, et un travail de sensibilisation important sera à réaliser à l’Inra pour familiariser les chercheurs avec la notion de « service écosystémique ». },
note = {hal-01157253 , version 1},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
En 2005, le Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) a permis de reconnaître l’importance des écosystèmes pour le bien-être humain, ainsi que la diminution d’un certain nombre de services fournis à l’homme par ces mêmes écosystèmes au cours des dernières décennies. L’agriculture est considérée comme responsable de la diminution d’un certain nombre de services, ainsi que de la biodiversité, au profit du seul service d’approvisionnement en nourriture (Carpenter et al., 2009). Elle se trouve donc aujourd’hui plus que jamais confrontée à deux impératifs qui mettent en avant sa multifonctionnalité : garantir la fourniture de biens de consommation (nourriture, bois, eau potable...) et de bénéfices sociaux (e.g. emploi) tout en préservant la capacité des écosystèmes à fournir d’autres services (purification de l’eau, régulation du climat, etc.). EcoServ est un méta-programme de recherche en construction à l’Inra afin qu’y soit développée une recherche inter-disciplinaire sur les services fournis par les écosystèmes continentaux dépendants des activités agricoles et forestières. La présente analyse a été engagée dans le cadre de sa construction, afin de connaître la place des systèmes agricoles dans la littérature sur les services écosystémiques. Ce travail de scientométrie a été guidé par quatre questions principales : quelles sont les disciplines scientifiques impliquées dans cette recherche ? Quels sont les services écosystémiques abordés dans la littérature ? Quels sont les écosystèmes étudiés ? Quelle est la place de l’Inra dans ce paysage ? Le corpus est issu de la base de données bibliographique Web of Science. Il a été construit de manière large afin d’inclure les différents synonymes de la notion de « service écosystémique ». Différentes analyses lexicales ont ensuite été réalisées pour la période postérieure au MEA (2006-2012) à l’aide de la plateforme CorTexT manager de l’Ifris et de R (R Core Team, 2012) : extractions lexicales, catégorisations de termes, calculs de fréquences, cartes de cooccurences. Les termes les plus fréquemment utilisés dans les articles de la période 1975- 2012 sont ecosystem service (39 % des documents indexés), puis ecosystem function (29 %), ecological function (14 %) et environmental service (9 %). Le terme ecosystem function dominera jusqu’en 2007 où il sera supplanté par celui de ecosystem service qui connait une progression exponentielle suite à la publication du MEA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003, 2005). Ce concept est particulièrement mobilisé par l’écologie et la biologie de la conservation, d’où il tire son origine. Les trois références les plus citées de ce corpus se situent en écologie (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; Hooper et al., 2005). Les sciences agronomiques utilisent plutôt le terme de « services environnementaux », qui met l’accent sur les services rendus par l’homme à l’environnement. La place de l’Institut dans ce corpus étant très faible (1.5 %) malgré les résultats importants obtenus au cours de l’enquête réalisée début 2013 auprès des départements, il est très probable qu’un grand nombre de services soient étudiés à l’Inra sans que les chercheurs se réclament de cette notion. Le service le plus étudié est celui de production agricole. La majorité des services sont étudiés de manière isolée. Lorsqu’ils sont étudiés conjointement, les services concernés sont majoritairement des services qui agissent en synergie. Les services antagonistes sont très peu étudiés conjointement. Par conséquent, lorsque la notion de trade-off apparait dans la littérature, elle est surtout abordée de manière théorique et programmatique. En outre, elle peut concerner différents niveaux et différents objets : il peut s’agir de faire des compromis entre acteurs, ou bien entre désirs et réalité, ou bien encore entre Environnement et Humanité. Si les écosystèmes forestiers et agricoles sont parmi les écosystèmes les plus étudiés, ils le sont principalement dans leur dimension bio-physique, et très peu dans leur dimension sociale. L’idée d’étudier un socio-écosystème dans son ensemble n’est pas encore mise en oeuvre. Les problématiques de gestion des ressources naturelles sont abordées principalement par des méthodologies de l’économie classique : consentement à payer, évaluations contingentes, etc. Elles sont également très liées à un argumentaire en faveur du développement social. Tout ceci amène à penser qu’une grande partie de la littérature sur la gestion des services écosystémiques est avant tout d’ordre programmatique. Cette étude met également en évidence la limite du cadre conceptuel du MEA, limite qui a déjà été pointée à de nombreuses reprises dans la littérature. Ses catégories de service sont en effet de portée limitée pour repérer les services dans la littérature et elles ne permettent pas de détecter les dysservices (entendus ici comme des dysfonctionnements des écosystèmes), qui représentent pourtant une part importante de cette littérature. Cette étude possède également des limites importantes dans la mesure où sa source de données est loin d’être exhaustive et où son travail de catégorisation n’a pas permis de lever certaines ambiguïtés thématiques. Il est en effet souvent difficile de déterminer à partir de la liste de termes s’il s’agit d’un service rendu par les écosystèmes ou d’un service rendu par l’homme (ex. : forest protection). Pour conclure, ces résultats montrent que ce concept a peu été saisi par les sciences agronomiques, quand bien même de nombreuses études traitent des milieux agricoles ; qu’il est beaucoup abordé de manière programmatique et sans considérer le socio-écosystème dans son ensemble. Un grand nombre de travaux effectués à l’échelle du paysage incluent les agro-écosystèmes mais ne sont pas réalisés par les sciences agronomiques. Celles-ci ont intérêt à se placer sur ces « approches paysage » qui gagnent une place de plus en plus importante. Le développement d’une recherche intégrée sur la gestion des écosystèmes anthropisés prend donc tout son sens dans ce contexte, et un travail de sensibilisation important sera à réaliser à l’Inra pour familiariser les chercheurs avec la notion de « service écosystémique ».
LIST OF SCIENTIFIC WORKS THAT HAVE USED CORTEXT MANAGER
(Sources: Google Scholar, HAL, Scopus, WOS and search engines)
We are grateful that you have found CorTexT Manager useful. Over the years, you have been more than 1050 authors to trust CorTexT for your publicly accessible analyzes. This represents a little less than 10% of CorTexT Manager user’s community. So, thank you!
We seek to understand how the scientific production that used CorText Manager has evolved and to characterise it. You will find here our analysis of this scientific production.
Browse documents by main topics
| What types of documents? |
|---|
| What types of documents? |
| 221 journal articles |
| 42 conference proceedings |
| 39 conference (not in proceedings) |
| 29 online articles |
| 29 Ph.D. thesis |
| 28 reports |
| 22 book chapters |
| 20 masters thesis |
| 11 workshop |
| 9 bachelorthesis |
| 9 book |
| 3 miscellaneous |
| 1 manual |
| 1 workingpaper |
| 1 proceedings |
Browse narrower topics
