No abstract

No abstract

Ecosystem services related to biodiversity, including cultural services, are essential for agricultural production such as viticulture. In agricultural landscapes, pesticides and mechanization threaten biodiversity, lead to landscape simplification and may reduce ecosystem services. On the other hand, consumers are more and more aware of environmental issues in food production. We investigated if landscape complexity, including soil management practices, was (i) appreciated by visitors and (ii) presented by winegrowers and tourism professionals in the French vineyards with the designation of geographical origin (DGO) ‘Coteaux du Layon’. Our goal was to determine if landscape complexity provides cultural ecosystem services such as aesthetics beneficial for the wine trade and the DGO region's attractiveness. We analyzed the iconographic content and the composition of landscape photographs on 50 websites to investigate if local winegrowers and tourism professionals associate biodiversity in the landscape and soil management practices with wine promotion. A questionnaire was realized to study the perception of local landscapes by interviewing 192 visitors of the region. The benefits of landscape complexity and soil management practices favoring biodiversity in viticulture were known and appreciated by many visitors, even if photographs of wine and traditional practices appeared to encourage wine purchasing. Local winegrowers’ representation of the DGO region only partially served these preferences; instead they mainly presented the wine-growing region by photographs focusing on wine bottles and vineyards. Consumer's preferences showed that complex landscapes could provide cultural ecosystem services that winegrowers are still less aware of. Therefore, complexity-targeted landscape planning including vegetation cover in soil management should be included in policy recommendations as agroecological measures for sustainable DGO production.

In Africa, cocoa yields are low, partly due to soil fertility constraints and poor management. While peoples’ knowledge, aspirations, and abilities are key factors explaining their behaviour, little is known about the rationales that underpin soil fertility management practices (SFMPs) of cocoa farmers. To address this gap, we conducted an exploratory survey in two contrasting regions in Cameroon where cocoa is an important crop: the humid forest and the forest-savannah transition zone. Some 30% of farmers in the transition zone as opposed to 13% in the humid forest expressed concerns about soil fertility. The most relevant soil fertility indicators for farmers were high cocoa yield, dark soil colour, ease of tillage, and floral composition. To enhance and maintain soil fertility, farmers used residues from weeding (100%), planting of trees (42%), mineral fertilisers (33%), compost (16%), and manure (13%). More farmers in the transition zone than the humid forest implemented SFMPs. Our findings suggest that soil fertility perceptions, access to inputs, local practices, and experience influence farmers’ use of SFMPs. The limited use of mineral fertilisers was explained by poor access whereas the use of organic fertilisers and tree planting were mostly constrained by lack of labour and knowledge. Farmers prioritised practices to increase yield and viewed SFMPs to be the least important management practices, although they believe high cocoa yield is an important indicator of soil fertility. To foster sustainable cocoa intensification, it is necessary to enhance farmers’ knowledge on SFMPs, increase access to inputs, and ensure returns on investment while considering farmers’ priorities and practices.

Cet article envisage une approche non économique des biens publics pour les aborder à partir des modalités de leur construction sociale et de la diversité des dimensions qui la constituent. La première partie présente les définitions classiques des biens publics puis, s’inspirant de l’approche épistémologique kuhnienne, décrit le processus de labellisation et de réappropriation de ces biens publics déployé par la théorie néo-classique. La seconde partie montre les principales difficultés que rencontre cette labélisation : elle limite la lecture des biens publics à la seule rationalité individuelle, elle considère ces biens comme dé-moralisés et, d’un point de vue pratique, elle empêche toute dénomination pleinement légitime de ces biens. La troisième partie s’ouvre ainsi à la construction sociale de ces biens. D’une part nous mobilisons et élargissons le processus de publicisation des biens proposé par Kaul et Mendoza (2003) ; d’autre part, nous associons à la réalité conceptuelle et économique des biens publics une dimension normative et une autre ontologique. Ces distinctions, dont nous montrons qu’elles sont récurrentes dans les travaux d’analyse des biens publics, rendent compte de la diversité des cadres servant à définir ces biens. Ceux-ci doivent être en effet différenciés, comme nous y invitent des travaux sociologiques, selon qu’ils désignent une réalité par essence, par finalité ou par ontologie. C’est la prise en compte de ce cadre qui permet d’embrasser les processus de publicisation et de rappeler, encore une fois, la nécessaire prise en compte des dynamiques sociales dans la construction des biens publics.